Same question 5 month later ? Best regards,
Alain On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 10:57 +0100, Alain O Miniussi wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > Has it been apply on a branch ? I don't think I see it on trunk. > > Thanks. > > Alain > > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 23:55 +0100, Matthias Troyer wrote: > > Hi Alain, > > > > Thank you very much! I'll try to apply it tomorrow. I sometimes prefer the > > throwing ctor version since my codes often require a certain threading > > level if they are multi-threaded, but I can add that later. > > > > Matthias > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Alain O Miniussi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Oups, forgot to send it to the list. > > > > > > ================================= > > > > > > So, here is next patch, I think it integrates all the discussions except > > > for the throwing ctor, which can be added later if a consensus is > > > reached. > > > > > > I did modify the documentation, but I do not know how to test those > > > changes. They are quite simple, but still... > > > > > > As for the throwing ctors, my position was that I do not see a strong > > > argument in their favor, and would like to see what the user are saying > > > (as a user, they would be of no use, I'd like to get 'multiple', but > > > will need to deal with the other possibilities anyway, so throwing is > > > not a option. But that's just a sample of one). > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 08:27 -0700, Matthias Troyer wrote: > > >> Thank you! I've committed the patch to config.hpp to the trunk and have > > >> also updated the documentation. > > >> > > >> Matthias > > >> > > >> On Jan 16, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Alain O Miniussi <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> There is an attached patch with that change. > > >>> If it's ok, and once commited, I'll move to the thread init. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 23:05 +0100, Matthias Troyer wrote: > > >>>> On Dec 4, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Alain O Miniussi <[email protected]> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 12:55 -0500, Jeremiah Willcock wrote: > > >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Matthias Troyer wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Jeremiah Willcock > > >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Another issue with MPI versions is that Boost.MPI currently uses > > >>>>>>>> functions such as MPI_Address that have been removed in MPI 3.0. > > >>>>>>>> Is > > >>>>>>>> that something that should be addressed in the future? I think > > >>>>>>>> the > > >>>>>>>> replacements for some of them did not exist before MPI 2.0. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> A valid point - we will have to provide two implementations > > >>>>>>> depending on > > >>>>>>> which version of MPI is present. Is there any standardized macro > > >>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>> one an check to determine the MPI version at compile time? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> There are MPI_VERSION and MPI_SUBVERSION, but those are in 2.0 and > > >>>>>> above > > >>>>>> only as well. You can probably use their being undefined to mean > > >>>>>> that the > > >>>>>> implementation does not comply to 2.0. I don't know how many > > >>>>>> 1.1-only MPI > > >>>>>> implementations are around anymore, though; there may not be any > > >>>>>> still in > > >>>>>> use (MPI 2.0 was released in 1997). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> That's a good point, especially if the "historical" C++ API was not > > >>>>> present in 1.1 (which I think it's the case, it's not clear to me if > > >>>>> it > > >>>>> was introduced in 1.2 or 2.0). Maybe we should only take into > > >>>>> consideration 2.0 and 3.0. > > >>>>> Also, if some 1.1 only API are still use, how many requires a > > >>>>> Boost.MPI > > >>>>> interface ? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> As far as the no arg init is concerned, it seems to me that that > > >>>>> - providing them will simplify the API, > > >>>>> - even if some 1.1 only MPI are still around, even if some of them > > >>>>> have > > >>>>> a use for Boost.MPI, even if those do not support a no arg Init, > > >>>>> theirs > > >>>>> users still have the possibility to provide those arguments anyway. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Alain > > >>>> > > >>>> I checked the implementation and we do have a no arg init for MPI 2.0 > > >>>> or higher since that can be tested by MPI_VERSION. You can also > > >>>> manually define BOOST_MPI_HAS_NOARG_INITIALIZATION to enable it for > > >>>> MPI 1.2 or MPI 1.3 implementations. I assume that this is good enough > > >>>> and we might just want to edit the documentation to make the no arg > > >>>> version the default in the documentation. > > >>>> > > >>>> Matthias > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> 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 > > >>> <mpiinit-r82503.patch>_______________________________________________ > > >>> 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 > > > > > > <mtmpi-82588.patch>_______________________________________________ > > > Boost-mpi mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-mpi > > > > > -- Alain Miniussi Pôle Génie Logiciel Scientifique. 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
