[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [mpi-21] ABI (was: Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0...)

To: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [mpi-21] ABI (was: Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0...)
From: Greg Lindahl <lindahl@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:19:07 -0800
Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21-outgoing@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
In-reply-to: <5ECAB1304A8B5B4CB3F9D6C01E4E21A2D3B655@swsmsx413.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <mp64xtryhGbQ.rSj4xqNx@smtp.gmail.com> <5ECAB1304A8B5B4CB3F9D6C01E4E21A2D3B655@swsmsx413.ger.corp.intel.com>
Reply-to: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 10:37:18AM -0000, Supalov, Alexander wrote:

> In other words,
> an application may not work upon transition to a new MPI. In fact, very
> often it does not.

Is there any way to collect more details about such instances, so that
we can think about possible holes in the standard?

-- greg

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [mpi-21] ABI (was: Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0...)
  - From: Rajeev Thakur
- Re: [mpi-21] ABI (was: Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0...)
  - From: Dries Kimpe

References:
- Re: [mpi-21] ABI (was: Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0...)
  - From: William Yu
- RE: [mpi-21] ABI (was: Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0...)
  - From: Supalov, Alexander

Prev by Date: RE: [mpi-21] MPI Forum suggestions 11/14
Next by Date: RE: [mpi-21] ABI (was: Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0...)
Previous by thread: Re: [mpi-21] ABI (was: Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0...)
Next by thread: RE: [mpi-21] ABI (was: Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0...)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread