Sender: lums@XXXXXX Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:08:48 -0500 From: Andrew Lumsdaine X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Gropp CC: Karl Feind ,mpi-core@XXXXXXXXXXX Subject: Re: MPI_Abort nit References: <4.2.2.20010131165059.035f8c88@XXXXXXXXX> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------785FE3C67BE0889F05AE64EA" IIRC, exit() takes an argument that is returned to the calling environment. William Gropp wrote: > At 12:06 PM 1/31/2001 -0600, Karl Feind wrote: > > >In the MPI-1 standard, we have this description of MPI_Abort(): > > > > MPI_ABORT(COMM, ERRORCODE, IERROR) > > INTEGER COMM, ERRORCODE, IERROR > > > > This routine makes a ``best attempt'' to abort all tasks in the group > > of comm. This function does not require that the invoking environment > > take any action with the error code. However, a Unix or POSIX > > environment should handle this as a return errorcode from the main > > program or an abort(errorcode). > > > >This is a minor nit, but POSIX and ANSI C specify that the abort() > >function does not take an argument. Hence the meaning of > >"abort(errorcode)" above is unclear. I think we should queue up a > >clarification/fix to the standard unless there's a meaning here that I'm > >misunderstanding. > > Thanks; I've added it to the clarification list. > > My interpretation followed the "handle this as a return errorcode from the > main program" branch; but either interpretation is ok. However, note that > the "should" here was not intended to be mandatory; it merely suggests what > a user-friendly implementation might do. As a *user*, I'd like the > specified error code returned by mpirun to the invoking > environment. However, any clarification should make clear that there is no > required return value (this is a quality of implementation issue). > > I can see environments where the return status indicates not only the code > but the processes that caused the abort ... > > Bill [] lumsdaine.1.vcf