RE: [mpi-21] Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0 agenda items for the Jan meeting

[Ashley Pittman <apittman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 11:05 +0000, Supalov, Alexander wrote:
> Having a common ABI and still behaving
> differently on some applications won't help customers move between MPI
> implementations, which is a common ABI is primarily intended for.

It's perfectly normal for different MPI implementations to work within
the spec but still exhibit different behaviour and expose different bugs
in applications, a ABI won't help here.

> By the
> way, the ABI extends beyond the function interface - it includes library
> naming, process startup, etc.

This is at least as difficult as a common function interface in my view
and whilst worth discussing I'm of the opinion that it's a different
issue and hence should be a different topic of discussion.

To the non-functional interface I should probably add output/input
redirection, signal handling, error teardown protocol and exit codes.

Ashley,