Hi all,

The Fault Tolerance Working Group will be reading the following ticket at the 
September 2019 meeting:

Create MPI_INFO_ENV before MPI_INIT 
Issue #143 <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/143>
Pull Request #126 <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/126>
Add a new API function for constructing an MPI_INFO_ENV object when one might 
not exist (or might be wrong). This is sort of in conjunction with the Tools 
and Sessions working groups.

We will also hold a no-no and first vote on the following ticket:

Issue #134 <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/134>
Pull Request #112 <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/112>
Add the MPI_ERR_PROC_ABORTED error class.
No-no text is here: 

Finally, we will have a second vote on these two issues:

Clarify what MPI_SUCCESS guarantees, and what is left undefined when 
MPI_ERR_XXX happens
Issue #119 <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/119>
Pull Request #95 <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/95>
The definition of MPI_SUCCESS is a terse "no error returned". When we operate 
under the assumption that some failure (process, resource, transport, 
otherwise) may happen, we need to clarify in which cases MPI_SUCCESS is 
possible, and what it guarantees. For example an implementation may mask errors 
that do not have a direct consequence on the call semantic.

Conversely, we need to clarify what arguments and buffers are valid or 
undefined after a call has raised an error.
Define error/failure behavior in MPI_INIT/FINALIZE
Issue #102 <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-issues/issues/102>
Pull Request #50 <https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/50>
Errors before or during MPI_INIT may kill the entire application, which makes 
initializing MPI a possibly risky proposition in a mixed-mode application.

mpi-forum mailing list

Reply via email to