Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

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.

From: Greg Lindahl (lindahl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-25 18:26:28


On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 05:49:13PM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> MorphMPI (or, as Patrick suggests, we need a cooler name -- PatrickMPI?
> ;-) ) is the work of 1 grad clever student (or anyone else industrious
> enough). Elapsed time: a few months.

Right.

> Making even 2 MPI implementations agree on an ABI is an enormous amount
> of work. Given that two major MPI implementations take opposite sides
> on the pointers-vs.integers for MPI handles debate (and I suspect that
> neither is willing to change), just getting them to agree on one of
> them will be a major amount of work. Then changing the internals of
> one of those MPIs to match the other is another enormous amount of work
> (death by a million cuts).

You yourself said how MPI implementers would actually implement this
without needing to change any internals: Make the C interface routines
do the same thing that F77 does today. Elapsed time: a few months,
same as MorphMPI. No internals need to be changed.

I suppose the good news is that if this is your main objection,
then it's gone.

> Also, as I pointed out in my original alternate proposal, with
> PatrickMPI, only those who want to use an ABI will use it. Those who
> do *not* want an ABI do not have to have it forced upon them.

I missed where anyone was being forced to do anything. MPI
implementers can support the ABI alongside their current interface or
not, it's their choice.

-- greg