Hello Jeff, all,
if you allow me my two cents,
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 08:44:28PM CEST:
>
> At the MPI Forum meeting in Dublin, the MPI ABI meeting was... er...
> shall we say, "spirited." :-) Both the benefits and drawbacks of an
> MPI ABI are widely contended (it's a
On Sep 9, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
At the MPI Forum meeting in Dublin, the MPI ABI meeting was... er...
shall we say, "spirited." :-) Both the benefits and drawbacks of an
MPI ABI are widely contended (it's a surprisingly complex topic).
it sounds quite daunting.
It is. :-
Just for clarification: we had a little internal discussion here about
this topic. I fear LANL's interest in this may be somewhat
misunderstood.
Basically, a few users here have expressed that it would be
"convenient" if they could switch MPI implementations without
recompiling - that is
Thanks Ralph; that helps explain things.
I did promise the ABI working group that I would ask the OMPI
community to see if anyone wanted to work with Intel on the proof of
concept. Let's put a finite end date on the CFP so that I can report
back to them: COB this Thursday, Oct 11, 2008.
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 03:07:24PM CEST:
>> On Sep 9, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>>
An MPI ABI will have to be versioned in
the same way that the API is versioned. You can have an ABI version
for
On Sep 9, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I did promise the ABI working group that I would ask the OMPI
community
to see if anyone wanted to work with Intel on the proof of concept.
Let's put a finite end date on the CFP so that I can report back to
them:
COB this Thursday, Oct 11
