On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > Responses inline, below. > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:42 PM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:32 AM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> >> > wrote: >> > [...snip...] >> >> >> >> Based on the latest response - it seems that we'll just fork OMPI and >> >> maintain those patches on top. I'll advise our customers not to use >> >> OMPI and document why. >> >> >> >> Thanks again >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> devel mailing list >> >> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >> >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> > >> > >> > >> > Though I participate on this list, I am not one of the Open MPI >> > developers, >> > and do not pretend to speak for them. >> > >> > So, speaking only for myself, I already recommend that users of any >> > recent >> > Open MPI avoid compiling it using the PathScale compilers. >> > My own testing shows that both ekopath-5.0.5 and ekopath-6.0.527 >> > experience >> > Internal Compiler Errors or SEGVs when building Open MPI, and at least >> > one >> > other package I care about (GASNet). >> > So I think you can understand why I find it ironic that PathScale should >> > request that the Open MPI sources revert to C89 to support PathScale >> > compilers for an EOL distro. >> >> Paul - Is this your typical post? I can't tell if you're trying to be >> rude or it's accidental. > > > > I am well known on this list and I think others will agree this was not my > typical post. > It is my response to your prior post: "I'll advise our customers not to use > OMPI and document why" which I found to be rude and inappropriate.
Was this not clear... (thinking out loud) "Based on the latest response - it seems that we'll just fork OMPI and maintain those patches on top. I'll advise our customers not to use OMPI and document why." By not use I meant [vanilla|unsupported] By forking something and patching it I thought it was clear that I was implying for them to use our "blessed" version/fork and not vanilla upstream. Why conveniently just skip that when quoting? Your reply seems level headed and rationale, but at the same time comes across in totally the wrong way. (I'm really trying to be polite) If you can't contribute positively to this thread, please stop replying or lets talk it off-list so we don't add noise to the list. In re: to my total bs comment - yes that was intentionally meant to show what "charged" is.. -------- The VHO bug which was proxy reported to me was fixed pretty quickly fwiw. We continue to try to improve our support for OpenMPI and thus why I'm hoping to get a few small patches upstream. If we can get vanilla rock solid across all the platforms we support I can QA nightly ompi+nightly compiler builds and catch things quite early. (That's my end goal) (I'm really trying to keep this thread on topic) [OT] I looked at the 2011 issue and seems I just dropped the ball. In fairness your claim may be entirely true, since we/I didn't provide much or any support for the open source version of the compiler. It was considered as-is and most serious users had a support contract via the site they were using it at. (Solaris was a personal project of mine as well as the other non-linux platforms. It was also relatively new and quite crap as you unfortunately found out) I'd have to double check, but you could have downloaded a newer version and checked if the issue was fixed. Since 2011 a lot of progress has been made on non-linux platforms and it may even be usable now. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
