I went ahead and removed the duplicate code, so this should work now. The
problem is that we re-factored the ompi_info/orte-info code, but didn't
complete the job - specifically, the orte-info tool didn't get updated. It's
about to get revamped yet again when the ompi-rte branch gets committed t
George,
I reported the bug three months ago.
Your commit r27880 resolved one of the bugs reported by me,
in another approach.
http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2012/10/11555.php
But other bugs are still open.
"(1) MPI_SOURCE of MPI_Status for a null request must be MPI_ANY_SOURCE.
To be honest it was hanging in one of my repos for some time. If I'm not
mistaken it is somehow related to one active ticket (but I couldn't find the
info). It might be good to push it upstream.
George.
On Jan 22, 2013, at 16:27 , "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)"
wrote:
> George --
>
> Is there
Nobody cared about error cases so far, I don't personally see any incentive to
push this patch in the 1.7 right now. But I won't be against as it is not
hurting either.
George.
On Jan 22, 2013, at 16:28 , "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)"
wrote:
> George --
>
> Similar question on this one: shou
I am using the openmpi-1.9a1r27886 tarball and I still see an error for one
of the two duplicate symbols:
CCLD orte-info
../../../orte/.libs/libopen-rte.a(orte_info_support.o): In function
`orte_info_show_orte_version':
../../orte/runtime/orte_info_support.c:(.text+0xe10): multiple definitio
George --
Similar question on this one: should it be CMR'ed to v1.7? (I kinda doubt it's
appropriate for v1.6)
On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:41 AM, svn-commit-mai...@open-mpi.org wrote:
> Author: bosilca (George Bosilca)
> Date: 2013-01-21 06:41:08 EST (Mon, 21 Jan 2013)
> New Revision: 27881
> URL:
George --
Is there any reason not to CMR this to v1.6 and v1.7?
On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:35 AM, svn-commit-mai...@open-mpi.org wrote:
> Author: bosilca (George Bosilca)
> Date: 2013-01-21 06:35:42 EST (Mon, 21 Jan 2013)
> New Revision: 27880
> URL: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/2788
Leif --
We talked about this a bit on our weekly call today.
Just to be sure: are you saying that George's patches are *functionally
correct* for ARM5/6/7 (and broken for ARM 4), but it would be better to
organize the code a bit better?
If that is correct, was ARM4 working before?
If ARM4 wa
