[mpich-discuss] MPI RMA

[Jim Dinan]

Hi Jed,

The MPI standard doesn't mandate a particular behavior in case of an 
error, so doing what the user asked for is also allowed.  :)

In seriousness, I completely agree on the importance of error checking. 
  The coverage in RMA has improved significantly through the MPI-3 
development effort, and we are continuing to work on it.

  ~Jim.

On 2/8/13 1:16 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Jim Dinan <dinan at mcs.anl.gov
> <mailto:dinan at mcs.anl.gov>> wrote:
>
>     However, it will work fine in MPICH.  In MPICH 3.0, I redesigned the
>     synchronization error detection; as of 3.0, this is the only invalid
>     RMA synchronization where we don't flag an error.  This is not so
>     much because we choose to support this as an extension to RMA, but
>     because the flush state needs to change collectively, making this
>     difficult (not O(1)) to detect.
>
>
> If this is really the only instance, it may not be worth it, but in
> general, it's helpful to have a run-time (or even compile-time, if
> necessary) option that does the strictest checking you're willing to
> implement, even when it implies a performance hit. Certainly useful for
> people trying to determine whether they have interpreted the standard
> correctly, or when given someone else's code that is failing mysteriously.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>