On 7/31/07, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Just curious -- why do you need to know if a handle refers to a
> predefined object?
If I understand correctly, new handles shoud be freed in order to do
not leak things, to follow good programming practices, and being
completelly sure a valgrind run do not repor
Short version:
--
The modular wireup code on /tmp/jms-modular-wireup seems to be
working. Can people give it a whirl before I bring it back to the
trunk? The more esoteric your hardware setup, the better.
Longer version:
---
I think that I have completed round 1 o
I'm getting a pile of test failures when running with the openib and
tcp BTLs on the trunk. Gleb is getting some failures, too, but his
seem to be different than mine.
Here's what I'm seeing from manual MTT runs on my SVN/development
install -- did you know that MTT could do that? :-)
+-
On Jul 31, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
In general, I think MPI standard should be fixed/clarified in many
places regarding to handling of returned references. Testing for
predefined Comm a Group handling is rather easy, but for Datatypes is
really cumbersome. Perhaps a MPI_Type_is_n
On 7/31/07, Dries Kimpe wrote:
> The MPI_File_get_view description in the standard has some issues related
> to copies and named datatypes:
>
> see
> http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/~gropp/projects/parallel/MPI/mpi-errata/discuss/fileview/fileview-1-clean.txt
Indeed, your comment was exactly the sour
Andrew,
Thanks for the info. I fix this problem in the 1.3 release. If you
download the nightly build after revision 15711, it will be corrected.
Thanks,
george.
On Jul 27, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Lofthouse wrote:
Hi,
I've just built and installed openmpi-1.2.3 on cygwin. It seem
* Lisandro Dalcin [2007-07-30 18:19:21]:
> On 7/30/07, George Bosilca wrote:
> > In the data-type section there is an advice to implementors that
> > state that a copy can simply increase the reference count if
> > applicable. So, we might want to apply the same logic here ...
> BTW, you just
