I don't see how you reach this conclusion. Based on my reading of the
standard, MPI_ERRHANDLER_NULL is a valid error handler defined as "no"
errorhandler. Kind of similar with MPI_REQUEST_NULL ...
Moreover, I don't agree with some of the other changes, more
specifically with the one related to the MPI_Request_get_status. Here
is a paragraph from the MPI 2.1 standard about MPI_Waitall page 59
line 24: "The list may contain null or inactive handles. The call sets
to empty the status of each such entry." This basically tells me that
the status of the MPI_REQUEST_NULL should be the empty status (defined
in the MPI standard) and not any kind of errors (i.e MPI_ERR_ARG).
george.
On Feb 19, 2009, at 11:43 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:47 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
I fail to find anything about this on the MPI Standard.
MPI doesn't define any errors, does it? :-) I think it falls into
the category of "MPI tells you what to do" and doesn't define what
happens if you don't do that. MPI_*_SET_ERRHANDLER says you have to
pass an errhandler handle. If you pass an invalid one (to include
NULL or MPI_ERRHANDLER_NULL), it's an undefined error.
For me passing the NULL error handle to any kind of set handler
function should not be an error. It should means that you prefer to
not have any error handler triggered on the object.
You want MPI to have *no* error mechanism defined for a given
communicator/file/window? That seems kinda broken. Indeed, what
you describe sounds a lot like MPI_ERRORS_RETURN -- meaning that you
*do* have to set something specifically to get the error handler to
effectively be a no-op (not NULL).
To be clear: MPI_ERRHANDLER_NULL is described as an invalid error
handler.
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
