[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [mpi-21] MPI Receive buffers
- To: "mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [mpi-21] MPI Receive buffers
- From: Erez Haba <erezh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:20:55 -0800
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21-outgoing@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- References: <6B68D01C00C9994A8E150183E62A119E6F987F018E@NA-EXMSG-C105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <079765B4-D2C0-4CAC-AEFE-AF69ECD97732@semeiosis.org>
- Reply-to: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AchA6WqZWBLSWVR5QruJVsuKsS4uLgAFOI6wBBbi+0A=
- Thread-topic: [mpi-21] MPI Receive buffers
Any thoughts on the standard choice of words?
-----Original Message-----
From: Erez Haba
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:45 PM
To: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [mpi-21] MPI Receive buffers
Can you elaborate?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 12:14 PM
To: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [mpi-21] MPI Receive buffers
Yes, it is on purpose.
With respect,
Steven
On Dec 17, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Erez Haba wrote:
> Reading the MPI 1.1 standard I noticed that the wording prohibits
> read access to the receive buffer rather than warning that the
> result is undefined. (or simply prohibit modifying the buffer).
>
> Is this on purpose?
>
> There are patterns where programs would like to,
> * poll on memory (longshot)
> * read some region of the buffer that is outside the non-contig
> buffer.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> .Erez
>
>