Re: [MTT devel] MTToGDS

2010-02-09 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Feb 5, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Igor Ivanov wrote: > Thank you to start playing with one. I hope you find it is useful. > I am trying to answer questions you raised. Thanks! Sorry for the delay in my answering -- got caught up in other stuff... Ugh! > 1. Yes, you are correct. The implementation

Re: [OMPI devel] failure with zero-length Reduce() and both sbuf=rbuf=NULL

2010-02-09 Thread Lisandro Dalcín
BUMP. See http://code.google.com/p/mpi4py/issues/detail?id=14 On 12 December 2009 00:31, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:26 PM, George Bosilca wrote: >> Lisandro, >> >> This code is not correct from the MPI standard perspective. The

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: s/ENABLE_MPI_THREADS/ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY/g

2010-02-09 Thread Ralph Castain
I'm sure someone will object to a name, but the logic looks fine to me On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:34 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: > >>> While we're at it, why not call the option giving MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE >>> support --enable-thread-multiple ? >> >>

Re: [OMPI devel] [patch] return value not updated in ompi_mpi_init()

2010-02-09 Thread Ralph Castain
Oops - yep, that is an oversight! Will fix - thanks! On Feb 9, 2010, at 7:13 AM, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote: > Hello, > > It seems that a return value is not updated during the setup of > process affinity in function ompi_mpi_init() > ompi/runtime/ompi_mpi_init.c:459 > > The problem is in the

[OMPI devel] [patch] return value not updated in ompi_mpi_init()

2010-02-09 Thread Guillaume Thouvenin
Hello, It seems that a return value is not updated during the setup of process affinity in function ompi_mpi_init() ompi/runtime/ompi_mpi_init.c:459 The problem is in the following piece of code: [... here ret == OPAL_SUCCESS ...] phys_cpu =

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: s/ENABLE_MPI_THREADS/ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY/g

2010-02-09 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:34 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: > > While we're at it, why not call the option giving MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE > > support --enable-thread-multiple ? > > Makes sense to me. I agree with Brian that we need three options here. Ok, how about these: --enable-opal-progress-threads:

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: s/ENABLE_MPI_THREADS/ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY/g

2010-02-09 Thread Ralph Castain
On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote: > While we're at it, why not call the option giving MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE support > --enable-thread-multiple ? Makes sense to me. I agree with Brian that we need three options here. > > About ORTE and OPAL, if you have

Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: s/ENABLE_MPI_THREADS/ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY/g

2010-02-09 Thread Sylvain Jeaugey
While we're at it, why not call the option giving MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE support --enable-thread-multiple ? About ORTE and OPAL, if you have --enable-thread-multiple=yes, it may force the usage of --enable-thread-safety to configure OPAL and/or ORTE. I know there are other projects using ORTE