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
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
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:
>
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
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
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:
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