Jeff,
I reviewed the changes in the collectives code(ml,bcol,sbgp) - everything looks
fine.
Thanks for the cleanup.
-P.
On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
mailto:jsquy...@cisco.com>> wrote:
They are assigned but not used.
On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:47 AM, "Shamis, Pavel"
mai
They are assigned but not used.
On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:47 AM, "Shamis, Pavel" wrote:
>> - coll ml
> This one is used.
>>
>> - sbgp basemsocket
> This one is used as well
>
> -P.
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list
> de...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-m
> - coll ml
This one is used.
>
> - sbgp basemsocket
This one is used as well
-P.
What: Remove code identified by compilers as being dead (e.g., set-but-unused)
Why: It's dead, Jim.
Where: Attached patch removes snipits of code from:
- openib udcm CPC
- coll inter
- coll ml
- coll sm
- sbgp basemsocket
- routed binomial
Timeout: next Tuesday teleconf (July 9)
More detail:
not really - don't think it is ever used as i don't see where it would get
propagated
On May 17, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Do you have any concerns about removing the username from the rmaps rank_file
> component?
>
>
> On May 16, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Ralph Castain wr
Do you have any concerns about removing the username from the rmaps rank_file
component?
On May 16, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> okay, i went thru this - found a couple of places where a deeper error was
> involved. i've committed those changes, so as far as i'm concerned you can
okay, i went thru this - found a couple of places where a deeper error was
involved. i've committed those changes, so as far as i'm concerned you can
update the patch and commit
On May 15, 2013, at 5:43 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Sure, no problem.
>
>
> On May 15, 2013, at 8:41 PM
Sure, no problem.
On May 15, 2013, at 8:41 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Hmmm...some of this doesn't look right to me. It could be that some of the
> code changed and stale things didn't get removed, but the snippets of logic
> in your patch raise alarms in some cases.
>
> Can you allow a bit m
Hmmm...some of this doesn't look right to me. It could be that some of the code
changed and stale things didn't get removed, but the snippets of logic in your
patch raise alarms in some cases.
Can you allow a bit more time? I need to apply the patch and actually look at
the total code path to u
WHAT: Remove a bunch of "set but not used" variables / dead code
WHY: Because it's dead code
WHERE: All over, but NOT the BTL ALLOC macros (per prior argu^H^H^H^Hdiscussion)
WHEN: Tomorrow (16 May 2013), COB
More detail:
gcc 4.7.x squawks a lot about "set but unused" variables. I took a sweep
10 matches
Mail list logo
