FYI -- in case you hadn't already noticed, the Coverity results are a
bit out of date (last run was 5/28/08). It looks like they're going
through some growing pains -- see my mail to David below, and his
reply below that.
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Maxwell
Date: June 10, 2008
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Lenny and I fixed it in r18659 -- sorry, it's a configure change...
thanks.
--td
On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Last night's tarball failed with the same problem.
Lenny is looking into it (I asked him about it on IM).
On Jun 16, 2008, at 8:06 AM, T
Lenny and I fixed it in r18659 -- sorry, it's a configure change...
On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Last night's tarball failed with the same problem.
Lenny is looking into it (I asked him about it on IM).
On Jun 16, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
When compiling th
I pinged the VT guys about this a little over a week ago -- they
indicated interest in seeing the Coverity results. I'm waiting for
their desired usernames before requesting accounts for them.
Additionally, note that we have a wiki page about OMPI's use of
Coverity:
https://svn.open-
Which tests are you referring to?
On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:09 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I completely agree that we should follow the standard to the
greatest possible extend, but then at least we should have our
test codes following the sam
On Jun 16, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I completely agree that we should follow the standard to the
greatest possible extend, but then at least we should have our test
codes following the same guidelines. It doesn't means I volunteer
for anything ...
I'm not sure what you mean
On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:25 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
Please search through the archives of this list; as Brian mentioned,
this topic has come up several times before. It's fairly boring to
keep repeating the same arguments; we have lots of *new* things to
argue about these days. ;-)
Unfortunat
Last night's tarball failed with the same problem.
Lenny is looking into it (I asked him about it on IM).
On Jun 16, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
When compiling the latest trunk under SLES 9 I am seeing the
following error:
../../../../../opal/mca/maffinity/libnuma/maffinity_libnu
When compiling the latest trunk under SLES 9 I am seeing the following
error:
../../../../../opal/mca/maffinity/libnuma/maffinity_libnuma_module.c:118:
error: `MPOL_MF_MOVE' undeclared (first use in this function)
Looks like SLES 9 numaif.h does not support MPOL_MF_MOVE. Can we
somehow make
