On Feb 11, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Rainer Keller wrote:
> Hi Ralph,
> hmm, I don't really care about the name itselve.
> As Jeff mentioned, we'd have a "abstraction break" either way.
There is no abstraction break - I talked to Jeff about it and cleared up the
confusion. The OMPI code will have an in
Hi Ralph,
hmm, I don't really care about the name itselve.
As Jeff mentioned, we'd have a "abstraction break" either way.
The question I have, why does orte_info need to include the information, which
compiler it was compiled with ;-)?
We basically only care to warn users about a typical MPI-use
On Feb 11, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> I wouldn't change the installation location - just thought it would be good
> to avoid the abstraction break in the source code.
>
> Remember - this file doesn't get installed at all unless we built the MPI
> layer...
Hmm. That becomes an in
I wouldn't change the installation location - just thought it would be good to
avoid the abstraction break in the source code.
Remember - this file doesn't get installed at all unless we built the MPI
layer...
On Feb 11, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> My only $0.02 is that if we rena
My only $0.02 is that if we rename it to opal_portable_platform.h, we must
remember that this file is #included in mpi.h, and therefore it is installed in
user OMPI installations.
$includedir/mpi_portable_platform.h was deemed to be a "safe" filename. But
we've already had a name conflict with
WHAT: Rename ompi/include/mpi_portable_platform.h to be
opal/include/opal_portable_platform.h
WHY: The file includes definitions and macros that identify the compiler used
to build the system, etc.
The contents actually have nothing specific to do with MPI.
WHEN:Weekend of F
