[Beowulf] The Case for an 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.
Joachim Worringen joachim at ccrl-nece.deWed Feb 23 03:19:55 PST 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] The Case for an MPI ABI
- Next message: [Beowulf] The Case for an MPI ABI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Greg Lindahl wrote: > The first question is: Does an ABI provide enough benefit for people > to care? To care enough to sit on a committee? Unfortunately, the value of an ABI is much reduced by the fact that the most important target platform Linux itself has no stable ABI (think of libc and other version nightmares). On a OS like Solaris or Windows, this is much more of a benefit. Another problem are i.e. vendor-specific assertions that could conflict. A solution for this could be "numerical namespaces" for such extensions, but how should they be managed? And what about the different calling-conventions in Fortran? Different library names for each variant? The different symbol names are also a problem, but a solvable one if a limited, but sufficient set of uppercase-lowercase-underscore permutations is defined. -- Joachim Worringen - NEC C&C research lab St.Augustin fon +49-2241-9252.20 - fax .99 - http://www.ccrl-nece.de
- Previous message: [Beowulf] The Case for an MPI ABI
- Next message: [Beowulf] The Case for an MPI ABI
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
