Hal, Based on http://www.mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi-20-html/node43.htm#Node43.
Only implementations conforming to MPI1.1 are allowed to require passing the actual values provided to main, MPI-2 does not. I don't know what kind of compatibility we want to maintain wrt MPI1,(afaic, stuff that is in the range 2.x-3.x would be fine) but that change would only concern a subset of MPI 1.1 implementations, and passing the arguments would still be allowed. But I guess the main question is: do we want to deal with 3 versions of the MPI standard ? Also, if Boost.MPI is presented as the successor of the C++ bindings, and if I am correct in assuming that the MPI::Init function always provided both versions, it would be weird to maintain a pre-existent limitation. Alain On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 08:33 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > Alain, > > I thought the system was arranged as it was because some MPI implementations > pass special arguments from the runtime system to the MPI library via special > command-line arguments. Passing the args to MPI_Init allows the library to > intercept those arguments (and erase them from the arg list seen by the rest > of the program). I don't know if any real implementations work this way, but > we may want to be careful about discouraging passing the real arg variables > to MPI_Init. > > -Hal > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Matthias Troyer" <[email protected]> > > To: "alain miniussi" <[email protected]>, "Discussion of Boost.MPI > > development" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:17:35 AM > > Subject: Re: [Boost-mpi] No arg init > > > > Hi Alain, > > > > You can indeed provide no arg initialization and just fake arguments > > for MPI-1. > > > > Matthais > > > > On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Alain O Miniussi > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > While working on the thread issue, a question arises regarding the > > > no > > > arg initialization. > > > > > > I understand that some MPI1.x might not allow it, but should > > > BOOST.MPI > > > refect that choice ? Why can't we just pass dummy empty (argc,argv) > > > to > > > MPI_Init(_thread) since, after all, no specific values are required > > > ? > > > > > > This would simplify our API, and I do not see any down side. > > > > > > Any though ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > -- > > > Alain Miniussi > > > Responsable Tech. Centre de Calcul Haute Performance > > > Obs. de la Côte d'Azur |Mont Gros: +33 4 92 00 30 09 > > > BP 4229 |Sophia : +33 4 83 61 85 44 > > > 06304 Nice Cedex 4 |https://crimson.oca.eu > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Boost-mpi mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-mpi > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Boost-mpi mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-mpi > > > -- Alain Miniussi Responsable Tech. Centre de Calcul Haute Performance Obs. de la Côte d'Azur |Mont Gros: +33 4 92 00 30 09 BP 4229 |Sophia : +33 4 83 61 85 44 06304 Nice Cedex 4 |https://crimson.oca.eu _______________________________________________ Boost-mpi mailing list [email protected] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-mpi
