That worked for me.
Brian
On 12/19/13 9:32 AM, "Ralph Castain" wrote:
>
>
>
>Okay, I think I have these things fixed in r29978 on the trunk - please
>give it a spin and confirm so we can move it to 1.7.4
>
>
>
>On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>
>
>On 12/19/13 8:43 AM, "Ral
On Dec 19, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>> Just to help me understand a bit better - you are saying that the node
>> supports process binding, but not memory binding? I don't see how the
>> error appears otherwise, but want to ensure I understand the code path.
>
> That appears to
Okay, I think I have these things fixed in r29978 on the trunk - please give it
a spin and confirm so we can move it to 1.7.4
On Dec 19, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> On 12/19/13 8:43 AM, "Ralph Castain" wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>>
On 12/19/13 8:43 AM, "Ralph Castain" wrote:
>
>On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>
>> On 12/19/13 6:59 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)"
>>wrote:
>>
>>> 3. Finally, we're giving a warning saying:
>>>
>>> -
>>> WARNING: a request was made to bind a process. While the system
On Dec 19, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> On 12/19/13 6:59 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" wrote:
>
>> 3. Finally, we're giving a warning saying:
>>
>> -
>> WARNING: a request was made to bind a process. While the system
>> supports binding the process itself, at least one node
On 12/19/13 6:59 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" wrote:
>3. Finally, we're giving a warning saying:
>
>-
>WARNING: a request was made to bind a process. While the system
>supports binding the process itself, at least one node does NOT
>support binding memory to the process location.
>-
>
>F
