> On Oct 21, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Eric Chamberland > <eric.chamberl...@giref.ulaval.ca> wrote: > > On 21/10/15 03:02 PM, Barry Smith wrote: >> >>> On Oct 21, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Eric Chamberland >>> <eric.chamberl...@giref.ulaval.ca> wrote: >>> >>> On 21/10/15 02:21 PM, Barry Smith wrote: >>>> Thanks. I don't think I need the Icount but. I think I can just generate >>>> an error if the FILE and LINE don't match exactly? >>> >>> Barry, I highly recommend you to use the static counter too otherwise you >>> won't catch the following bug: >>> >>> if all processes should call "n" times the same line of code (then the same >>> __LINE__ and __FILE__) but one process do not make the right number of >>> call... >> >> I don't understand. >> >> Say one process called it one less time then the rest. Then during the >> next call to MPI_Allreduce by the rogue process it will have a different >> LINE and FILE from the others (since they will still be at the previous call >> site) and hence the macro will generate an error message since line and >> file won't match. What is wrong with my reasoning? > > ok, imagine that the rogue process continue... but then the next collective > call encountered is at the very same line of code... which is possible in 2 > situations: > > #1: the rogue process continue and don't encounter *any* other collective > call before re-entering the very same function... > > #2: the collective call is in a loop!!! (which is in fact a trivial situation > included in #1)
Sure, but in that "case" the count would be identical on both processes anyways and so would not detect a problem? How could the count be different? Barry > > Eric >
