Just curious -- is there a reason we don't have --with-visibility
enabled by default on platforms that support it? It seems like a
useful mechanism.
Also, I notice that we don't have an output line in configure that
shows if visibility was enabled or not. Can it be added?
--
Jeff Squyre
Hi Ralph -
Eliminating the dependence of OMPI on the GPR is in some ways
actually a plus, as it should make it much easier to enhance the GPR
as an optional advanced capability. In general, it would be great
if OMPI/ORTE could make it easier to support this sort of extension
mechanism, for exampl
Good enough for me. I'd also say that the comments should be
fixed. :-)
On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:24 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:57:22PM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Were these supposed to cover the time required for pinning and
unpinning?
That what the comment says, but
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:05:24AM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Actually, we should then also print out a different error message when
> RNR occurs in PP QP's, too. It should be something along the lines of
> "flow control problem occurred; this shouldn't happen..." (right now
> it says RNR
Actually, we should then also print out a different error message when
RNR occurs in PP QP's, too. It should be something along the lines of
"flow control problem occurred; this shouldn't happen..." (right now
it says RNR happened, and goes into detail into what that means -- but
that's no
Ok. I'll clean up the description of that MCA param to state that it
only applies to SRQs.
Thanks.
On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:59 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:41:13PM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I see that in the OOB CPC for the openib BTL, when setting up the
send
side
Hey!
This was *just* discussed on the list yesterday and I said that we
needed to use the official 3rd party import SVN procedures for PLPA.
This was *NOT* done here!
I also said that I would do an actual PLPA release before it was
imported into Open MPI so that we could have an official
Understood; I too, have started to use hg internally at Cisco. But I
still take care to set svn:ignore properly when I commit back to the
main repository, for a few reasons:
- SVN is the official SCM for OMPI; it's a choice to *not* use it
- there are still a good chunk of developers using S
Thanks for the hint, Ralf ! I will give it a try...
On Mi, 2008-02-13 at 13:58 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hallo Matthias,
>
> * Matthias Jurenz wrote on Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 01:49:41PM CET:
> > On Di, 2008-02-12 at 11:27 -0500, George Bosilca wrote:
> >
> > > I keep getting some warnings
Hallo Matthias,
* Matthias Jurenz wrote on Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 01:49:41PM CET:
> On Di, 2008-02-12 at 11:27 -0500, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> > I keep getting some warnings when I compile with gcc-4.2 on MAC OS X.
> >
> > tools/compwrap/Makefile.am:38: `CXXFLAGS' is a user variable, you
> > sh
Yo Jeff
I sympathize with your request. However, we should note that those of us not
using subversion for our work (e.g., using Hg or GIT) may not see this
problem despite best intentions. Those system set "ignore" on a global
basis, not on a per directory basis like svn. So (a) we just don't see
Hi George,
I'm not sure, whether you are able to see my reply of the ticket 1214...
...
For building VT on cross-platforms it's possible to build the compiler
wrappers (vtcc, vtcxx, vtf77, and vtf90) and the OPARI binary for the
front-end. Therefor the user should set the variable CXX_FOR_BUI
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquy...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:34 PM
> To: Lenny Verkhovsky
> Cc: PLPA users list; Open MPI Developers; Sharon Melamed; Ralph
Castain;
> Pak Lui
> Subject: Re: merging new PLPA to the trunk
>
> On Feb 12, 2008,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:57:22PM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Were these supposed to cover the time required for pinning and
> unpinning?
That what the comment says, but CPU executes code and not comments :)
Memory pinning happens inside prepare_dst() after prepare_dst() returns
the memory is a
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:41:13PM -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I see that in the OOB CPC for the openib BTL, when setting up the send
> side of the QP, we set the rnr_retry value depending on whether the
> remote receive queue is a per-peer or SRQ:
>
> - SRQ: btl_openib_rnr_retry MCA param va
15 matches
Mail list logo
