> On 02 Mar 2016, at 14:54 , Ralph Castain wrote:
> * remove the enable-debug-by-default logic
Given that it currently depends whether your VPATH is inside or outside the
source tree, I think that is the only consistent decision :)
On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Perhaps we can all meet in the middle:
>
> * remove the enable-debug-by-default logic
>
>
I have no strong opinion about that
> * have mpirun -version clearly state that it is a debug build and include
> Jeff’s warning about debug builds being
Perhaps we can all meet in the middle:
* remove the enable-debug-by-default logic
* have mpirun -version clearly state that it is a debug build and include
Jeff’s warning about debug builds being used for performance testing
I’m increasingly feeling that we shouldn’t output that message every t
Ralph,
that means that when a developer truse to reproduce exactly what an end
user did, he/she will get a different behavior because only one of them is
known. imho, that sounds a bit too crazy.
what about an other approach :
have mpirun --version (and MPI api if any) clearly state this is a deb
What about this crazy idea? We already have .opal_unignore that looks at the
username. Well, what if we did the same thing here? Have autogen.pl look at the
username - if it is a known developer, then enable debug. If not, then disable
it.
I am just concerned that we are going to spend a bunch
On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:30 AM, Mark Santcroos wrote:
>
>> On 02 Mar 2016, at 5:06 , Gilles Gouaillardet wrote:
>> what about *not* issuing this warning if OpenMPI is built from git ?
>> that would be friendlier for OMPI developers,
>> and should basically *not* affect endusers, since they would rat
> On 02 Mar 2016, at 5:06 , Gilles Gouaillardet wrote:
> what about *not* issuing this warning if OpenMPI is built from git ?
> that would be friendlier for OMPI developers,
> and should basically *not* affect endusers, since they would rather build
> OMPI from a tarball.
VPATH builds aren't de
On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:20 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
>
> Yes, we did. But that hasn't happened yet. I don't remember who was
> supposed to do that, offhand. If we decide that disabling debug builds by
> default is a better approach than this one, no problem. To me, they seem
> like c
On Mar 2, 2016, at 1:02 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> I am not sure why Jeff decided to implement this approach. If I remember
> correctly last week we converged toward the solution described by Ralph (ie
> disabling the debug build by default for everyone, including developers).
Yes, we did.
I am not sure why Jeff decided to implement this approach. If I remember
correctly last week we converged toward the solution described by Ralph (ie
disabling the debug build by default for everyone, including developers).
I wish we could fix all the cases. What we tried to achieve is to prevent
Let me rephrase that.
i will set the parameter in the etc/openmpi-mca-params.conf of my
install directory,
and i will very likely forget about it (etc/openmpi-mca-params.conf is
not overwritten by make install, right ?)
if one day, i decide to configure without --enable-debug and run a
perfo
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 22:27 , Gilles Gouaillardet wrote:
>
> be "me-friendly" :-)
> i explicitly configure with --enable-debug --enable-picky from git, so i
> (hopefully) know what i am doing and do not want any warning.
>
> iirc, cisco mtt does that too, and i am not sure you would want a warn
I’ll bet we get a rash of complaints about this behavior…at the very least,
let’s not do it if somebody deliberately asks for a debug build. I think people
generally hate getting annoying warnings just because a few people do something
wrong.
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 8:27 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet
be "me-friendly" :-)
i explicitly configure with --enable-debug --enable-picky from git, so i
(hopefully) know what i am doing and do not want any warning.
iirc, cisco mtt does that too, and i am not sure you would want a
warning and/or update your mtt config.
this is not a strong opinion, a
On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:17 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet wrote:
>
> In this case, should we only display the warning if debug build was implicit ?
> for example, ./configure from git would display the warning (implicit debug),
> but ./configure --enable-debug would not (explicit debug), regardless we
>
In this case, should we only display the warning if debug build was
implicit ?
for example, ./configure from git would display the warning (implicit
debug),
but ./configure --enable-debug would not (explicit debug), regardless we
built from git or a tarball
On 3/2/2016 1:13 PM, Jeff Squyres (
On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:06 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet wrote:
>
> what about *not* issuing this warning if OpenMPI is built from git ?
> that would be friendlier for OMPI developers,
> and should basically *not* affect endusers, since they would rather build
> OMPI from a tarball.
We're actually spec
Jeff,
what about *not* issuing this warning if OpenMPI is built from git ?
that would be friendlier for OMPI developers,
and should basically *not* affect endusers, since they would rather
build OMPI from a tarball.
Cheers,
Gilles
On 3/2/2016 1:00 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
WHAT: Ha
WHAT: Have orterun emit a brief warning when using a debug build.
WHY: So people stop trying to use a debug build for performance results.
WHERE: Mostly in orterun, but a little in orte/runtime
WHEN: No rush on this; the idea came up today at the MPI Forum. We can discuss
next Tuesday on the W
19 matches
Mail list logo
