On Jan 18, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> It looks like you manually updated the hg repo to be v1.5, so I guess we can
> go from there (i.e., I'll review and send feedback). But in the future, you
> might want to try the above procedures, instead.
Wrong -- you updated it to the SVN tr
IMHO, it's (much) easier to get an SVN checkout of the tree you're trying to
sync with and then follow the procedures on that wiki page for SVN + Mercurial
interaction. This allows two things:
1. You can easily stay up-to-date with SVN changes, even on release branches.
2. You can easily/direct
Hmm. That looks like a merge gone bad; I'm not sure what happened there. It
could well be an artifact of traversing from 1.5 to 1.4, or something like
that.
I would not re-remove these files.
On Jan 17, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> You removed the following files
Jeff,
You removed the following files
(https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi/changeset/9b8f70de722d).
I see that they are in the trunk. Shall I remove them again ?
HACKING
config/Makefile.options
config/libltdl-preopen-error.diff
config/lt224-icc.diff
config/mca_acinclude.m4
con
The bitbucket tree (https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi) has
just been updated with the open-mpi trunk.
I have made three patches:
hg out
comparing with ssh://h...@bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi
searching for changes
changeset: 25:3e677102a125
user:Pascal
Pascal Deveze a écrit :
Jeff Squyres a écrit :
I'm actually confused by the changelog on the repo:
- r1 (https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi) says "Initial import from
branch v1.5"
- r15 (https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi/changeset/a535d7cdbe79) then
says "Up
Jeff Squyres a écrit :
I'm actually confused by the changelog on the repo:
- r1 (https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi) says "Initial import from
branch v1.5"
- r15 (https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi/changeset/a535d7cdbe79) then
says "Update with openmpi-1.4.3"
I'm actually confused by the changelog on the repo:
- r1 (https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi) says "Initial import
from branch v1.5"
- r15
(https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi/changeset/a535d7cdbe79)
then says "Update with openmpi-1.4.3"
...?
Did you not use t
I just (re?)noticed that your mercurial tree is based on the 1.4 branch:
https://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi
Are we targeting the v1.4 series for this?
I thought we were targeting trunk/v1.5 for the new ROMIO, but perhaps I'm
forgetting something...?
On Jan 14, 2011, a
Jeff Squyres a écrit :
Great!
I see in your other mail that you pulled something from MPICH2 to make this
work.
Does that mean that there's a even-newer version of ROMIO that we should pull in its entirety? It's a little risky to pull most stuff from one released version of ROMIO and then mor
On Jan 13, 2011, at 14:08 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Great!
>
> I see in your other mail that you pulled something from MPICH2 to make this
> work.
>
> Does that mean that there's a even-newer version of ROMIO that we should pull
> in its entirety? It's a little risky to pull most stuff from on
Great!
I see in your other mail that you pulled something from MPICH2 to make this
work.
Does that mean that there's a even-newer version of ROMIO that we should pull
in its entirety? It's a little risky to pull most stuff from one released
version of ROMIO and then more stuff from another re
This problem of assertion is now solved by a patch in ROMIO just
commited in http://bitbucket.org/devezep/new-romio-for-openmpi
I don't know any other problem in this porting of ROMIO.
Pascal
Pascal Deveze a écrit :
Jeff Squyres a écrit :
On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:31 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
Jeff Squyres a écrit :
On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:31 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
I got the assert every time with the following "trivial" code:
#include "mpi.h"
Good; let's add this trivial test to ompi-tests. Do you guys have a set of
ROMIO / IO test cases that you run? I don't think we h
Sorry for the delay; travel got in the way.
It was quite difficult to pull from your repo because you committed about a
dozen generated files that all conflicted with mine (assumedly we have slightly
different versions of flex and whatnot).
I tried to push back some minor changes but I don't ha
Jeff,
I removed ompi/mca/io/romio/romio/acinclude.m4. I put "autoreconf -ivf
-I confdb" in autogen.sh. And I "chmod +x autogen.sh" (my
stupid error is that this file wasn't executable).
And all is now OK.
These modifications have been pushed in bitbucket.
I tried to run the ROMIO tests and got
On Dec 1, 2010, at 7:35 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
> I am not on AIM nor on google talk. Sorry. In the case you think it is
> necessary, I could ask for an ID.
FWIW. Many of us find it convenient for quickie/informal discussions. We can
keep going here in email and switch to phone if it becomes
Hi Jeff,
Comments are in the text
Jeff Squyres a écrit :
On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:44 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
I have commited all my last changes in bitbucket, including those that follows.
I got a checkout, and still have some problems/questions. More below.
If you do the IM thing,
On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:44 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
> I have commited all my last changes in bitbucket, including those that
> follows.
I got a checkout, and still have some problems/questions. More below.
If you do the IM thing, ping me on IM (I sent you my IDs in an off-list email).
>> Do we
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for having a look in my unified diff (see comments in the text)
I have commited all my last changes in bitbucket, including those that
follows.
Pascal
Jeff Squyres a écrit :
Some questions about the patch:
configure.in:
@@ -2002,9 +1987,8 @@
# Turn off the building of
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
> The last changes are not committed back in bitbucket. I thought that was not
> necessary. Would you like that I update also bitbucket ? If yes, I will do it.
Yes, that would be most convenient. Thanks!
> Applying the diff on a local copy of
Jeff,
The last changes are not committed back in bitbucket. I thought that was
not necessary. Would you like that I update also bitbucket ? If yes, I
will do it.
Applying the diff on a local copy of the trunk, you should be able to
generated a library with the new ROMIO.
Pascal
Jeff Squyr
Some questions about the patch:
configure.in:
@@ -2002,9 +1987,8 @@
# Turn off the building of the Fortran interface and the Info routines
EXTRA_DIRS=""
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_STATUS_SET_BYTES,1,[Define if status_set_bytes available])
- DEFINE_HAVE_MPI_GREQUEST="#define HAVE_MPI_GREQUEST"
-
Great!
Are those final changes committed back to the bitbucket? If so, I'll give it a
whirl.
On Nov 24, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Pascal Deveze wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Here is the unified diff.
> As only the romio subtree is modified, I made the following command:
> diff -u -r -x .svn ompi-trunk/
Hi Jeff,
Here is the unified diff.
As only the romio subtree is modified, I made the following command:
diff -u -r -x .svn ompi-trunk/ompi/mca/io/romio/romio/
NEW-ROMIO-FOR-OPENMPI/ompi/mca/io/romio/romio/ > DIFF_UPDATE
tar cvzf DIFF_UPDATE.TGZ DIFF_UPDATE
Compilation is OK. I run the ROMIO
Thanks Pascal!
Is there any change you could send a unified diff of the tip of your hg vs. the
SVN trunk HEAD?
E.g., if you have an hg+ssh combo tree, could you "hg up" in there to get all
your work, and then "svn diff > diff.out" and then compress and send the
diff.out?
Thanks!
On Nov 10,
WHAT: Port the lastest ROMIO version from MPICH2-1.3 into the trunk.
WHY: There is a considerable interest in updating the ROMIO branch that
was ported from mpich2-1.0.7
WHERE: ompi/mca/io/romio/
WHEN: Before 1.5.2, so asap
TIMEOUT: Next Tuesday teleconf, 23 Nov 2010
-
I am in charge o
27 matches
Mail list logo
