Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] debugger confusion
From: Ralph Castain (rhc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-08 10:49:33


On Nov 8, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:25 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
>> However, based on what we have in the trunk today, Open MPI doesn't follow that document. As Ralph pinpointed it, the current version work with several tools (tv, stat, padb) as is, so that means the tools do not really follow that document either.
>
> This is not quite accurate.
>
> What the tools did over the past decade was make it so that they work with the 5-6 MPIR variants that are out there. So yes, they work with OMPI, but they work with the others who aren't quite "right," either. Because before this, there was no central definition of "right."

Agreed, though with a slight variation. Not only were the MPIs variant, but so are the tools. Some tools support various MPIR extensions and combinations of features, and others don't. That was the motivation behind some of us "pushing" the tool vendors to create a "standard" MPIR definition - it was to get all those extensions defined. The base stuff was always pretty common.

And yes - I was one of those "twisting" their arms because I got tired of dealing with all the bloody tool interface variations, providing special code to support someone's pet extension, etc.

>
> The intent of the document was to make that central definition of "right" and gradually have everyone move to it. AFAIK, all the tools have been updated to work with the "right" definition of MPIR.

While I think people may generally support some of the basic MPIR definitions, I haven't seen movement to supporting the full range - but maybe I've missed it. I haven't been following it as much over the last year or so.

Even if they have, though, there is no way for us to control what release someone is using. So we still have to support both the old and the new variations for some time.

>
> Keep in mind that this is pretty much the same rationale as to why MPI still supports functions like MPI_ATTR_SET: even though it's deprecated, there's apps out there that still use it and will take a long time to adapt. Hence, the tools will keep supporting the "old" / "not-quite-right" definitions of MPIR for a long time.
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel