>Mainly because at it's core, LAM has always been a research project and
>given the choice between binary compatibility and new research, we had
>to be able to do the research. Binary compatibility is also hard and
>time consuming.
>
>With Open MPI, which is funded by people interested in production
>environments, we are trying much harder to guarantee binary
>compatibility. It isn't always possible, but we're trying.
>
>Brian
>
Thank you for the reply!
I still feel puzzled about the problem. I think that if the applications dynamically link with the MPI's library at runtime, then it can be binary compatible with different versions of MPI£¬am I wrong? Why LAM do not provide the dynamic shared library to let the applications link dynamically with it, is the performance reason?
Can you tell something about why you feel hard to guarantee binary compatibility and how will you do with it?
Thanks again. Liu.
|
