Subject: Errors in May 5 version

From: William Gropp <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:49:13 -0500

What is the process for correcting errors at this point?  I sent several but I
have received few comments (all have agreed).  

(1)
The May 5 version has:

int MPI_Get_count( MPI_Status status, MPI_Datatype datatype, int *count )
int MPI_Get_elements( MPI_Status status, MPI_Datatype datatype, int *count )
int MPI_Test_cancelled( MPI_Status status, int *flag )

These should all be

int MPI_Get_count( MPI_Status *status, MPI_Datatype datatype, int *count )
int MPI_Get_elements( MPI_Status *status, MPI_Datatype datatype, int *count )
int MPI_Test_cancelled( MPI_Status *status, int *flag )

(2)
The various MPI_Type_size, extent, etc. functions in the May 5 version assume 
that the difference between 2 pointers to the same storage area in C can
be represented by an int (as opposed to, for example, a long or a long long).
I believe this is in error; while MPI_Aint was used for both these lengths and
the addresses, we could assume that MPI_Aint was large enough for both
purposes; choosing the C type "int" for the extents and sizes can make it
impossible to return a correct value for some situations.

(3) 
In 3.2.2, the sentance fragment

MPI_DOUBLE_COMPLEX for double precision
complex in Fortran declared to be of type DOUBLE PRECISION;

should be

MPI_DOUBLE_COMPLEX for double precision
complex in Fortran declared to be of type DOUBLE COMPLEX;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question for the MPIF:  What is the proper way to make these changes?  
I would claim that these are all "clearly in error" but particularly the first
one, the bindings for MPI_Get_count etc. is correct but unintended.

Bill

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 18:00:05 EDT

: -) :-) :-) *** (-: (-: (-:
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 18:00:02 -0400
From: Marc Snir <[email-masked]>

I suggest the following process:

Major changes should be discussed now only if the text is
inconsistent, and would require approval by the forum; syntactic
corrections can be done by the chapter author(s).   The chapter
author forwards the correction to the erata keeper (Steve?).  An MPI
erata is maintained on netlib and updated at reasonable frequency
(monthly?).  No new full version of the MPI document before it gets
published as a book.  It would be useful, if possible, to put in the
journal article a pointer to the erata.

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Pacheco)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 12:32:25 PDT

Bill Gropp writes that we have three possibilities 

>   (a) The WWW version is up-to-date, with corrections
>   (b) The WWW version is not up-to-date, but has pointers to errata
>   (c) The WWW version is not up-to-date and reflects the last published 
>       version; it is necessarily incorrect.

I agree with Bill that option (a) is preferred, although I think that 
differences from the published hardcopy should be marked.  An obvious
question in this connection:  does anyone have the time to keep it
up to date?

                                        Peter Pacheco