Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

From: Mark Hahn (hahn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-03 19:14:04


> If there is an ABI then we have a fighting chance at focusing on the
> applications and not the ever-so-slightly-strange version of whichever
> flavor of MPI that they chose to use.

wonderful! yes: ABI standards are good and proprietary
implementations (which inherently provide only negative
definitions of support) are bad.

after all, the real appeal is that N MPI implementation only need to test
their own conformity to the standard, and M applications test their
conformity. ie, N+M tests, rather than N*M without an ABI. this
assumes that the ABI/standard is broad enough, of course!

first, it's worth asking whether there is something to be lost
by going to an ABI? yes, dynamic linking imposes some overhead -
I have to wonder whether some of the higher-performing interconnects
(SGI/Cray/Quadrics/Pathscale) are low-latency enough to worry about
indirect library calls blowing the pipeline.