On Dec 2, 2014, at 1:10 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote:
>> Are you referring to something Adam Moody proposed? Or some other Adam? > > He did more than proposing, he provided a link to the implementation in SCR. > So yes, I was indeed referring to Adam Moody. Ah -- you're referring to http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2014/11/25871.php. Got it. >> FWIW, we’ve traditionally named Open MPI-specific extensions "OMPI_" instead >> of "MPIX_" (which can be confused with other MPI implementation extensions). > > Indeed, it was a choice we made long ago. Thinking about this retroactively > it was a bad choice. We (UTK) maintain some of the extensions, and as other > MPI libraries start providing similar extensions (while they are discussed in > the MPI Forum), users start asking for a common naming scheme in order to > simplify their life. I've talked to users who ask for the opposite -- since MPI extensions are, by definition, specific to a particular MPI implementation, they specifically asked for OMPI MPI extensions to *not* be MPIX_*, because then it's easy to identify that it's an Open MPI extension (vs. an extension for some other MPI implementation). > Other than a preferential reason, what other competing reason do we have to > stick with OMPI_ instead of MPIX_? I think it's largely informal, so we can do whatever we want. The namespace MPIX_ is not regulated (nor mandated), so there's possibilities for collisions, which would be pretty dreadful for users. I like the OMPI_ prefix because it clearly identifies the function as specific to Open MPI (i.e., you really should enclose it in #if defined(OPEN_MPI) / #endif). If you/users really want MPIX_, how about: use OMPI_Foo as the "real" name, and have alternate entry points via MPIX_Foo? (via #define, wrapper functions, or whatever) Then we all win. Huzzah! -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
