Re: [OMPI users] tickets 39 & 55

On Nov 2, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: On Nov 2, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michael Kluskens wrote: So "large" was an attempt to provide *some* of the interfaces -- but [your] experience has shown that this can do more harm than good (i.e., make some legal MPI applications uncompilable beca

Re: [OMPI users] tickets 39 & 55

On Nov 2, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michael Kluskens wrote: So "large" was an attempt to provide *some* of the interfaces -- but [your] experience has shown that this can do more harm than good (i.e., make some legal MPI applications uncompilable because we provide *some* interfaces to MPI_GATHER, but

Re: [OMPI users] tickets 39 & 55

All this seems a terrific effort. Is it really justified, especially if it can't cope with the diversity of real-world applications ? I suspect that people who are clever enough to code complex parallel codes involving collective primitives might be able to check arguments. If possible, I su

Re: [OMPI users] tickets 39 & 55

On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:53 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: Adding Craig Rasmussen from LANL into the CC list... On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Michael Kluskens wrote: OpenMPI tickets 39 & 55 deal with problems with the Fortran 90 large interface with regards to: #39: MPI_IN_PLACE in MPI_REDUCE

Re: [OMPI users] tickets 39 & 55

Adding Craig Rasmussen from LANL into the CC list... On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Michael Kluskens wrote: OpenMPI tickets 39 & 55 deal with problems with the Fortran 90 large interface with regards to: #39: MPI_IN_PLACE in MPI_REDUCE #55: MPI

[OMPI users] tickets 39 & 55

OpenMPI tickets 39 & 55 deal with problems with the Fortran 90 large interface with regards to: #39: MPI_IN_PLACE in MPI_REDUCE #55: MPI_GATHER with arrays of different dimensions Attached is a p