Looks good to me too.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Looks good to me!
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Adrian Reber wrote:
>
> > Thanks for pointing out orte_rml_recv_callback(). It does just what I
> > need. I removed my own callback and I am now using
> orte_rml_re
Looks good to me!
On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Adrian Reber wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out orte_rml_recv_callback(). It does just what I
> need. I removed my own callback and I am now using orte_rml_recv_callback()
>
> I have extended the patches to fix the usage of static buffers
> in SNAPC
Thanks for pointing out orte_rml_recv_callback(). It does just what I
need. I removed my own callback and I am now using orte_rml_recv_callback()
I have extended the patches to fix the usage of static buffers
in SNAPC and SSTORE as well as removing all remaining occurrences
of TODOs in my 'getting
This looks okay to me. Couple of comments:
1. if you don't want to create your own callback function, you can use the
standard one. It does more than you need, but won't hurt anything:
ORTE_DECLSPEC void orte_rml_recv_callback(int status, orte_process_name_t*
sender,
I have the following patches which I would like to commit. All changes
are in the SNAPC component. The first patch replaces all statically
allocated buffers with dynamically allocate buffers. The second patch
removes compiler warnings and the last patch tries to re-introduce
functionality which I r
