> On 02 Mar 2016, at 14:54 , Ralph Castain wrote:
> * remove the enable-debug-by-default logic
Given that it currently depends whether your VPATH is inside or outside the
source tree, I think that is the only consistent decision :)
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Perhaps we can all meet in the middle:
>
> * remove the enable-debug-by-default logic
>
>
I have no strong opinion about that
> * have mpirun -version clearly state that it is a debug build and include
> Jeff’s warning about debug builds being
Perhaps we can all meet in the middle:
* remove the enable-debug-by-default logic
* have mpirun -version clearly state that it is a debug build and include
Jeff’s warning about debug builds being used for performance testing
I’m increasingly feeling that we shouldn’t output that message every t
Ralph,
that means that when a developer truse to reproduce exactly what an end
user did, he/she will get a different behavior because only one of them is
known. imho, that sounds a bit too crazy.
what about an other approach :
have mpirun --version (and MPI api if any) clearly state this is a deb
What about this crazy idea? We already have .opal_unignore that looks at the
username. Well, what if we did the same thing here? Have autogen.pl look at the
username - if it is a known developer, then enable debug. If not, then disable
it.
I am just concerned that we are going to spend a bunch
On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:30 AM, Mark Santcroos wrote:
>
>> On 02 Mar 2016, at 5:06 , Gilles Gouaillardet wrote:
>> what about *not* issuing this warning if OpenMPI is built from git ?
>> that would be friendlier for OMPI developers,
>> and should basically *not* affect endusers, since they would rat
> On 02 Mar 2016, at 5:06 , Gilles Gouaillardet wrote:
> what about *not* issuing this warning if OpenMPI is built from git ?
> that would be friendlier for OMPI developers,
> and should basically *not* affect endusers, since they would rather build
> OMPI from a tarball.
VPATH builds aren't de
On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:20 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
>
> Yes, we did. But that hasn't happened yet. I don't remember who was
> supposed to do that, offhand. If we decide that disabling debug builds by
> default is a better approach than this one, no problem. To me, they seem
> like c
On Mar 2, 2016, at 1:02 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> I am not sure why Jeff decided to implement this approach. If I remember
> correctly last week we converged toward the solution described by Ralph (ie
> disabling the debug build by default for everyone, including developers).
Yes, we did.
I am not sure why Jeff decided to implement this approach. If I remember
correctly last week we converged toward the solution described by Ralph (ie
disabling the debug build by default for everyone, including developers).
I wish we could fix all the cases. What we tried to achieve is to prevent
10 matches
Mail list logo
