Terry Dontje wrote:
Iain Bason wrote:
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Mmmm... good point. I was thinking specifically of the
if_in|exclude behavior in the openib BTL. That uses strcmp, not
strncmp. Here's a complete list:
ompi_info --param all all --parsable | grep incl
Iain Bason wrote:
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Mmmm... good point. I was thinking specifically of the if_in|exclude behavior
in the openib BTL. That uses strcmp, not strncmp. Here's a complete list:
ompi_info --param all all --parsable | grep include | grep :value:
mc
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:26 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> I guess this is the result different developers with different ideas working
> on a non consistent way. This is without talking about the fact that we do
> the same checking in several places, and we duplicate the code in a way that
> doesn't
On Mar 3, 2010, at 15:04 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Iain Bason wrote:
>
>>> 1. The individual entries now behave like pseudo-regexp's rather that
>>> strict matching. We used strict matching before this for a reason. If we
>>> want to allow regexp-like behavior, then
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
> Mmmm... good point. I was thinking specifically of the if_in|exclude
> behavior in the openib BTL. That uses strcmp, not strncmp. Here's a
> complete list:
>
> ompi_info --param all all --parsable | grep include | grep :value:
> mca:opal:
On Mar 3, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Iain Bason wrote:
> > 1. The individual entries now behave like pseudo-regexp's rather that
> > strict matching. We used strict matching before this for a reason. If we
> > want to allow regexp-like behavior, then I think we should enable that with
> > special char
On Mar 3, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with change #1. I understand in principle why the
> change was made, but I'm uncomfortable with:
>
> 1. The individual entries now behave like pseudo-regexp's rather that strict
> matching. We used strict matching before
I'm not sure I agree with change #1. I understand in principle why the change
was made, but I'm uncomfortable with:
1. The individual entries now behave like pseudo-regexp's rather that strict
matching. We used strict matching before this for a reason. If we want to
allow regexp-like behavio
