George Bosilca wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
George Bosilca wrote:
If I understand correctly your question, then we don't need any
extension. Each request has a unique ID (from PERUSE perspective).
However, if I remember well this is only half implemented in our
PERUS
On Nov 6, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
George Bosilca wrote:
If I understand correctly your question, then we don't need any
extension. Each request has a unique ID (from PERUSE perspective).
However, if I remember well this is only half implemented in our
PERUSE layer (i.e. it works
George Bosilca wrote:
If I understand correctly your question, then we don't need any
extension. Each request has a unique ID (from PERUSE perspective).
However, if I remember well this is only half implemented in our
PERUSE layer (i.e. it works only for expected requests).
Looking at the peru
If I understand correctly your question, then we don't need any
extension. Each request has a unique ID (from PERUSE perspective).
However, if I remember well this is only half implemented in our
PERUSE layer (i.e. it works only for expected requests). This should
be quite easy to fix, if s
Currently in order to do message tracing one either has to rely on some
error prone postprocessing of data or replicating some MPI internals up
in the PMPI layer. It would help Sun's tools group (and I believe U
Dresden also) if Open MPI would create a couple APIs that exoposed the
following:
