Hi,
The following trivial example doesn't compile because of 2 missing types
in the MPI_SIZEOF subroutines (in mpi_sizeof.f90).
[derbeyn@btp0 test]$ cat mpi_sizeof.f90
program main
!use mpi
include 'mpif.h'
integer ierr, sz, mpisize
real r1
Nadia --
I believe that the character and logical types are not in this script already
because the description of MPI_SIZEOF in MPI-3.1 says that the input choice
buffer parameter is:
IN x a Fortran variable of numeric intrinsic type (choice)
As I understand it (and my usual disclaimer her
> I just checked MPICH 3.2, and they *do* include MPI_SIZEOF interfaces for
> CHARACTER and LOGICAL, but they are missing many of the other MPI_SIZEOF
> interfaces that we have in OMPI. Meaning: OMPI and MPICH already diverge
> wildly on MPI_SIZEOF. :-\
And OMPI 1.6 also had MPI_SIZEOF interf
Jeff,
Actually, we have a functional test suite that used to pass for these
types and it fails now with v2.x. So I thought it was a regression.
But from what you're saying, the new standard doesn't have a strong
requirement on LOGICAL and CHARACTER. So I really don't mind, since I
don't know w
On Apr 15, 2016, at 8:49 AM, Kawashima, Takahiro
wrote:
>
>> I just checked MPICH 3.2, and they *do* include MPI_SIZEOF interfaces for
>> CHARACTER and LOGICAL, but they are missing many of the other MPI_SIZEOF
>> interfaces that we have in OMPI. Meaning: OMPI and MPICH already diverge
>> wi
On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:05 AM, DERBEY, NADIA wrote:
>
> Actually, we have a functional test suite that used to pass for these
> types and it fails now with v2.x. So I thought it was a regression.
Gotcha.
> But from what you're saying, the new standard doesn't have a strong
> requirement on LOGI
Nadia,
by any chance, could this test suite be contributed to the ompi-tests
repository ?
Cheers,
Gilles
On Friday, April 15, 2016, DERBEY, NADIA wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Actually, we have a functional test suite that used to pass for these
> types and it fails now with v2.x. So I thought it was a
Well, actually it's an old test suite (mpich2). We originally downloaded
it a long time ago form
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/mpi/mpi-test/tsuite.html.
And we changed a bunch of things to make it run in our test environment.
I thought it was already in the MTT repo?
Regards,
Nadi
I didn't copy dev on this.
-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --
Von: *Howard Pritchard*
Datum: Donnerstag, 14. April 2016
Betreff: psm2 and psm2_ep_open problems
An: Open MPI Developers
Hi Matias
Actually I triaged this further. Open mpi PMI subsystem is actually doing
things co
Actually, it did come across the developer list :-)
Why don’t I resolve this by just ensuring that the key we create is properly
filled? It’s a trivial fix in the PMI ess component
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 7:26 AM, Howard Pritchard wrote:
>
> I didn't copy dev on this.
>
>
>
> -- Weit
No, we never imported the MPICH test suite to the ompi-tests repo on the
argument that the MPICH test suite is continually under development; we
wouldn't really want to snapshot it in our own repo.
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:52 AM, DERBEY, NADIA wrote:
>
> Well, actually it's an old test suite (
I have a patch that I think will resolve this problem - would you please take a look?Ralph
matias.diff
Description: Binary data
On Apr 15, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:Actually, it did come across the developer list :-)Why don’t I resolve this by just ensuring that the
Be careful what you wish for.
I remember looking at this issue a while ago, but I can't remember why or how I
ran into it. I do remember convincing myself that the MPI standard was correct
in restricting SIZEOF to numeric types. For one thing, a character variable
type is a string container i
I also remember reading in the past about problems with C sizeof and multibyte
characters. I just looked over the C90 standard. In C90 code, the sizeof
operator returns size_t in bytes. Except that it always returns 1 for char,
signed char, or unsigned char. For an array, C90 says sizeof ret
All sounds like good reasons to amend the Bull test suite to no longer check
for character and logical. :-)
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Larry Baker wrote:
>
> I also remember reading in the past about problems with C sizeof and
> multibyte characters. I just looked over the C90 standard.
15 matches
Mail list logo