Valid options are :
--with-threads e.g. --with-threads=posix e.g. default
And
--with-threads=no

Except configure will explicitly fail if --with-threads=no is used

So bottom line, pthreads and pthreads only are usable

Cheers,

Gilles 

"Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquy...@cisco.com>さんのメール:
>On Jan 7, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet 
><gilles.gouaillar...@iferc.org> wrote:
>
>> Talking about thread support ...
>> 
>> i made a RFC several monthes ago in order to remove the
>> --with-threads option from configure
>> 
>> /* ompi requires pthreads, no more, no less */
>
>Did we decide this?  (that OMPI *requires* pthreads)
>
>I *think* we did.  But I just want to make sure that my (terrible) memory is 
>correct...
>
>> it was accepted, but i could not find the time to implement it ...
>> 
>> basically, i can see three steps :
>> 
>> 1) remove the --with-threads option from configure, check for pthreads, and 
>> set the
>> OPAL_HAVE_POSIX_THREADS macro to 1
>
>Sounds good.
>
>> 2) step 1) + remove #ifdef OPAL_HAVE_POSIX_THREADS and remove dead code
>> (e.g. #ifndef OPAL_HAVE_POSIX_THREADS)
>
>Also make configure fail if pthreads are not available.
>
>> 3) step 1) + step 2) + remove the OPAL thread abstraction layer
>> 
>> is it a good idea to implement steps 2) and 3) ?
>> i mean, if there is a chance we might support an other threading model in 
>> the future,
>> it might be better to keep some dead code for the time being.
>
>I think the consensus was that pthreads are fine for the foreseeable future.  
>If we need to re-add the threading abstraction layer, it's annoying, but not 
>difficult.  Might as well simplify what we have, since there's no other 
>threading system on the horizon that we need to worry about.
>
>-- 
>Jeff Squyres
>jsquy...@cisco.com
>For corporate legal information go to: 
>http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
>_______________________________________________
>devel mailing list
>de...@open-mpi.org
>Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>Link to this post: 
>http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/01/16750.php

Reply via email to