Or, we think that the current half-measures should be removed completely
so that the Forum cannot claim to have addressed MPI and threads properly.
-Tony
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Rusty Lusk wrote:
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:08:40 -0600
> From: Rusty Lusk <lusk@mcs.anl.gov>
> To: Eric Salo <salo@mrjones.engr.sgi.com>
> Cc: "'mpi-external@mcs.anl.gov'" <mpi-external@mcs.anl.gov>
> Subject: Re: MPI and Threads
>
>
> | I gotta disagree. But to some extent this is a moot issue. I see no benefit
> | at all to officially blessing any one threads package in the MPI
> | standard. If users want pthreads in sufficient numbers then the market will
> | adapt to fill this need. And if they don't, then we would be better off not
> | attempting to dictate otherwise in the standard.
>
> I gotta agree. One reason that we should not require or endorse any
> particular thread syntax, and instead focus on the semantics as we have
> been doing, is that for MPI, the semantics is the point. To make this
> explicit, one can envisage a system that has a POSIX-compliant pthread package
> that does *NOT* follow the rules in our "MPI and Threads" discussion, but also
> has another thread package that does do so. Then the programmer must not
> use pthreads, but the threads that work well with MPI. The program might
> not be as portable as it was before the programmer introduced explicit
> multithreading, but that is the fault of the threads packages, not MPI.
>
> Rusty
>
>
Anthony Skjellum, PhD, Associate Professor of Computer Science;
Mississippi State University, Department of Computer Science & NSF ERC
Butler, Rm 300, PO Box 9637, Corner of Perry&Barr, Mississippi State,MS 39762
(601)325-8435 FAX: (601)325-8997; http://www.erc.msstate.edu/~tony;
"Procrastination is the 8th Deadly Sin." ; tony@cs.msstate.edu; Support MPI!