An interesting point was brought up on the dev Webex today: we should probably finish MPI_Count first.
Put differently: the value of the ABI is diminished if Open MPI doesn't support MPI_Count. ________________________________ From: Howard Pritchard <hpprit...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 12:20 PM To: Open MPI Developers <devel@lists.open-mpi.org> Cc: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] MPI ABI effort LANL would be interested in supporting this feature as well. Howard On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 9:58 AM Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) via devel <devel@lists.open-mpi.org<mailto:devel@lists.open-mpi.org>> wrote: We got a presentation from the ABI WG (proxied via Quincey from AWS) a few months ago. The proposal looked reasonable. No one has signed up to do the work yet, but based on what we saw in that presentation, the general consensus was "sure, we could probably get on board with that." There's definitely going to be issues to be worked out (e.g., are we going to break Open MPI ABI? Maybe offer 2 flavors of ABI? Is this a configure-time option, or do we build "both" ways? ...etc.), but it sounded like the community members who heard this proposal were generally in favor of moving in this direction. ________________________________ From: devel <devel-boun...@lists.open-mpi.org<mailto:devel-boun...@lists.open-mpi.org>> on behalf of Gilles Gouaillardet via devel <devel@lists.open-mpi.org<mailto:devel@lists.open-mpi.org>> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2023 2:20 AM To: Open MPI Developers <devel@lists.open-mpi.org<mailto:devel@lists.open-mpi.org>> Cc: Gilles Gouaillardet <gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com<mailto:gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com>> Subject: [OMPI devel] MPI ABI effort Folks, Jeff Hammond and al. published "MPI Application Binary Interface Standardization" las week https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.11214 The paper reads the (C) ABI has already been prototyped natively in MPICH. Is there any current interest into prototyping this ABI into Open MPI? Cheers, Gilles
