<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">This was the motivation, more than avoiding declaring a variable that was never read in the user’s program. There was evidence for this from Intel in the early ‘90s, though I don’t know if anyone has looked into it recently.<div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br><div>
William Gropp<br>Director, Parallel Computing Institute<br>Thomas M. Siebel Chair in Computer Science<br>Chief Scientist, NCSA<br>University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign<br><br><br><br><br>
</div>
<br><div><div>On May 26, 2016, at 6:30 PM, Jeff Hammond <<a href="mailto:jeff.science@gmail.com">jeff.science@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div dir="ltr">Is it correct to assume that it is cheaper to check for MPI_STATUS_IGNORE and MPI_STATUSES_IGNORE than to fill in the status object, in the case where the user does not need the status?<div><br>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Jeff<br><br>--<br>Jeff Hammond<br><a href="mailto:jeff.science@gmail.com">jeff.science@gmail.com</a><br><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jeffhammond.github.io_&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=195OD1c98cxYlIPBUDzl00KueizThEKs34a9DvL37eY&m=iuTHr1BMHTF0IZu91D5hE0cMssRgFrtbpy5zSC3AHnk&s=M9rJF-xGqC5P5vHJ5Y7ZKg0Fth1x5HkJtEND8fgNAFU&e=">http://jeffhammond.github.io/</a><br>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:<br><a href="https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/devel">https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>