On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:13:01AM -0700, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:53:36PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 17:18 , Nathan Hjelm
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:13:01AM -0700, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:53:36PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 10, 2013, at 17:18 , Nathan Hjelm wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:28:02PM +02
On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:53:36PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 10, 2013, at 17:18 , Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:28:02PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote:
All Windows objects that are managed as HANDLES
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:53:36PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 17:18 , Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:28:02PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote:
> >> All Windows objects that are managed as HANDLES can easily be modified to
> >> have static initializer.
On Jun 10, 2013, at 17:18 , Nathan Hjelm wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:28:02PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote:
>> All Windows objects that are managed as HANDLES can easily be modified to
>> have static initializer. A clean solution is attached to the question at
>> stackoverflow:
>> http:/
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:28:02PM +0200, George Bosilca wrote:
> All Windows objects that are managed as HANDLES can easily be modified to
> have static initializer. A clean solution is attached to the question at
> stackoverflow:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3555859/is-it-possible-to-do
All Windows objects that are managed as HANDLES can easily be modified to have
static initializer. A clean solution is attached to the question at
stackoverflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3555859/is-it-possible-to-do-static-initialization-of-mutexes-in-windows
That being said I think ha
Perhaps I was wrong -- I thought we had no static initializer because there was
no static initializer for mutexes in windows.
On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:28 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
> Im curious to know why Windows support is to be blamed for the lack of such
> functionality?
>
> George.
>
> O
Im curious to know why Windows support is to be blamed for the lack of such
functionality?
George.
On Jun 7, 2013, at 18:08 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Nathan forgot to mention that we didn't have this before because of Windows.
> But now we don't have Windows support, so...
>
>
>
Nathan forgot to mention that we didn't have this before because of Windows.
But now we don't have Windows support, so...
On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:01 AM, "Hjelm, Nathan T" wrote:
> What: Add a static initializer for opal_mutex_t for both posix and solaris
> threads.
>
> Why: Enables the use of
What: Add a static initializer for opal_mutex_t for both posix and solaris
threads.
Why: Enables the use of opal locks that don't have to be OBJ_CONSTRUCT'ed.
When: This is a trivial addition but I would like some review/testing of the
code (I don't have solaris). Setting timeout to Tuesday, Ju
11 matches
Mail list logo
