This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
On Apr 14 2011, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>> ... It's hopeless, and whatever you do will be wrong for many
>>> people. ...
>> I think that sums it up pretty well. :-)
>> It does seem a little strange that the scenario you describe somewhat
>> implies that one process is calling MPI_Finalize loooong before the
>> others do. Specifically, the user is concerned with tying up resources
>> after one process has called Finalize -- which implies that the others
>> may continue on for a while. It's not invalid, of course, but it is a
>> little unusual.
> I'm finding it more common than we thought. Note that I didn't say that
> one process called MPI_Finalize before the others. In this case, they
> call it fairly close together, but the individual processes continue
> running for quite some time, or until they determine that something is
> wrong and exit with non-zero status.
Nobody is denying that it is common. Now, what happens when you encounter
a language or compiler that uses return codes for mere warnings (e.g.
ignored IEEE 754 flags, as stated to be desirable by LIA-1)? Bang!
Remember that C is not the universe and many languages use MPI via the
C interface, but do not let C control their model.