I have been struggling with two problems with respect to
the *_SHARED_ALL routines: they are not orthogonal to the
other *_ALL routines, and I have not been able to justify
them in terms of a real application use.
The first problem can be eliminated by renaming, but the
justification problem is harder. The non-collective *_SHARED
routines support log files and work sharing, but I don't have
any examples of applications that need the *_SHARED_ALL (or
renamed *_SHARED_ORDERED) routines.
John, do you have an application use in mind? I would love to
include a real example in the text.
> > 14. PROPOSAL: TYPE_SUBARRAY semantics depend on language binding [11.6.3]
> Could you comment further upon this? There is no proposal in the draft
> at this point regarding this.
Oops. I should have marked this as a proposal in the draft as well
as in my email. The new draft text is marked by change bars in
section 11.6.3. The semantics of TYPE_SUBARRAY were not well defined
in the draft, and I simply added a paragraph specifying the current
operational behavior of the PMPIO prototype implementation of MPI I/O.
In any case, we should have a straw vote on it at the subcommittee
meeting.
- bill