I really like defining the new MPI_THREAD_INIT() routine as an alternative to
MPI_INIT(). Some random thoughts:
- What happens if MPI is unable to provide the requested level of strictness?
Is this an error?
- The names for the different degees of strictness are a bit of a mess; it
would not be immediately obvious to the casual observer that they are related.
So I would propose the following (still imperfect) names instead:
MPI_THREAD_QUERY (see below)
I think it would also be nice if we specified that these values should
translate to integers with increasing values, so that programmers can just use
a simple greater-than/less-than test instead of a switch/case statement.
- Adding yet another flavor of MPI_INITIALIZED() is ugly, especially since it
breaks the symmetry that we just gave ourselves by adding MPI_FINALIZED().
Instead, I propose that we add a MPI_THREAD_QUERY value, which simply asks
MPI_THREAD_INIT() to return the current level of strictness, or MPI_UNDEFINED
if MPI has not yet been initialized.
- The new MPI_THREAD_MAIN() routine should more properly be named
- Let's do keep the argc/argv arguments out, please!
-- Eric Salo Silicon Graphics Inc. email@example.com