On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 06:47:41AM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Regardless of which way you choose, your statement "No internals have
> to change" is inaccurate. At a minimum, *EVERY* MPI API function in
> somebody's implementation will have to change.
That's what I call the interface, yes. I
On Mar 25, 2005, at 6:26 PM, Greg Lindahl wrote:
Making even 2 MPI implementations agree on an ABI is an enormous
amount
of work. Given that two major MPI implementations take opposite sides
on the pointers-vs.integers for MPI handles debate (and I suspect that
neither is willing to change), j
Hi,
With this debate over a common interface, I've noticed
that some have been talking about a common API (ie:
code-level compatibility) and others an ABI (ie:
binary-level compatibility). There's a big difference,
so I think it might be helpful if it was cleared up as
to what it was that was want
