Mark Hahn wrote:
If there is an ABI then we have a fighting chance at focusing on the
applications and not the ever-so-slightly-strange version of whichever
flavor of MPI that they chose to use.
wonderful! yes: ABI standards are good and proprietary
implementations (which inherently provide
> If there is an ABI then we have a fighting chance at focusing on the
> applications and not the ever-so-slightly-strange version of whichever
> flavor of MPI that they chose to use.
wonderful! yes: ABI standards are good and proprietary
implementations (which inherently provide only negative
Jeff Squyres wrote:
I have a followup question:
Who, exactly, wants an MPI ABI? I have seen a vocal few voice their
opinions (both for and against). But these are not representative of
Me... please, please really... I don't want 7 MPI implementations on
my customers clusters anymo
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:19:39PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> If so, are we therefore in agreement that a MorphMPI-like approach is a
> good first step?
No, because we apparently disagree about what MorphMPI is. You claim
it's a lot less work than an ABI; I claim it's about the same. We
both a
On Mar 26, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Greg Lindahl wrote:
I guess I don't understand your reluctance to accept a MorphMPI-like
solution:
You have repeated your original MorphMPI attributes. I responded to
them, and I don't see any sign that you've read my response. This is
not the way discussions are u
