On Jan 10, 2014, at 9:19 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote:
> However, one should keep in mind that MPI_Comm_free does not have to be a > collective function, thus making any type of collective > assumption/communications inside the attribute destructor might lead to > deadlocks in future versions. Actually, MPI-3 defines MPI_COMM_FREE as collective (p248:23). > In other words if the only thing you do in the attribute descriptor is > tearing down locally posted requests, then you are safe. If you send data > using the communicator then you’re definitively playing dangerously with the > safety line. I still agree with this point, though -- even though COMM_FREE is collective, you could still get into ordering / deadlock issues if you're (effectively) doing communication inside it. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
