[O-MPI users] Re: [Beowulf] Alternative to MPI ABI
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Greg Lindahl lindahl at pathscale.comSat Mar 26 16:50:45 PST 2005
- Previous message: [O-MPI users] Re: [Beowulf] Alternative to MPI ABI
- Next message: [O-MPI users] Re: [Beowulf] Alternative to MPI ABI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 06:47:41AM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Regardless of which way you choose, your statement "No internals have > to change" is inaccurate. At a minimum, *EVERY* MPI API function in > somebody's implementation will have to change. That's what I call the interface, yes. It's a similar size effort to creating an F77 interface in an MPI implementation. We've agreed on this several times already; I'm not sure why we need to agree on it again, or why the exact definition of the word "internals" is so important. > I guess I don't understand your reluctance to accept a MorphMPI-like > solution: You have repeated your original MorphMPI attributes. I responded to them, and I don't see any sign that you've read my response. This is not the way discussions are usually held. -- greg
- Previous message: [O-MPI users] Re: [Beowulf] Alternative to MPI ABI
- Next message: [O-MPI users] Re: [Beowulf] Alternative to MPI ABI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
