Greg,
Thank you for your e-mail. To save you the trouble of running some
experiments, I'd like to let you know what the problem was in our case.
A routine compiled with "Portland" called a routine compiled with
"Pathscale".
A logical .TRUE. parameter was passed, so "Portland" passed in a
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:29:22PM +, Neil Storer wrote:
> Be careful when you say:
Neil,
I think that you'll find that pathf90 accepts -1 for TRUE, so this is
easily handled by the binding for MPI. I'd have to write some test
programs to be sure, and I'll get back to you on that. I think th
Greg,
Be careful when you say:
The Fortrans are compatible enough that a single MPI library can deal
with all. The calling convention stuff happens to work because MPI
doesn't happen to have any calls that hit the "f2c abi" issue. The
underscore thing can be handled with multiple symbols for ea
Stuart Midgley wrote:
The other issue we are concerned about is that an ABI doesn't resolve
one of the central issues. While you might have different MPI's with
the same ABI, different mpi's behave differently and can cause a code to
behave differently. An ISV would still have to verify thei
The reason to include it is that it would make integrating with batch
systems less of a headache for system administrators. Right now most
only support 1 MPI version because this is annoying.
Easy integration with a batch system would be a huge bonus. Also, the
ability to test a new revisio
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:21:58PM +1100, Stuart Midgley wrote:
> One major implementation issue is the equivalent of mpirun (which I
> assume would be part of an ABI?) - or the startup requirements of
> different MPI's.
This may or may not be part of an ABI.
The reason to not include it is th
First, I think an ABI would be an excellent idea, if only for ease of
support on our systems. However, after a quick discussion with a
colleague, I have a few concerns.
One major implementation issue is the equivalent of mpirun (which I
assume would be part of an ABI?) - or the startup requi
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:49:52AM -0500, Larry Stewart wrote:
> The presentation ignores the issue of instruction set. Even within
> the x86 family we have IA-32, EMT 64, and AMD-64.
Larry,
Thanks for sending some interesting comments.
The presentation wasn't intended to be all things to all
Toon Knapen wrote:
Greg Lindahl wrote:
http://www.openib.org/docs/oib_wkshp_022005/mpi-abi-pathscale-lindahl.pdf
mostly talks about why we need an ABI, who wins and loses as a result
of having one, and the pieces that could be in it. Please give it a
look.
The presentation ignores the issue
As posted on comp.parallel.mpi, I also wanted to forward this message to
us...@open-mpi.org because I think it is relavent to the (undoubtly
upcoming) mpich2 <-> open-mpi discussion.
Greg Lindahl wrote:
The first question is: Does an ABI provide enough benefit for people
to care?
I care a
10 matches
Mail list logo
