On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 6:36 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> > There is one minor thing I would suggest to change. In your patch
> in_unexpected_list is defined as a bool, which translates to an int on most
> platforms.
>
> This stateme
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:37:41PM +, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 6:36 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> > There is one minor thing I would suggest to change. In your patch
> > in_unexpected_list is defined as a bool, which translates to an int on most
> > platforms.
>
On Feb 19, 2014, at 6:36 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
> There is one minor thing I would suggest to change. In your patch
> in_unexpected_list is defined as a bool, which translates to an int on most
> platforms.
This statement isn't true. sizeof(bool)==1 on my Mac and on our x86_64 Linux
clust
Nathan,
Sorry, I’m moving and will not have the time to thoughtfully review your patch
before March. I quickly glanced over and things look OK, but I had no time to
validate/test it.
There is one minor thing I would suggest to change. In your patch
in_unexpected_list is defined as a bool, whic
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:43:37AM +0100, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> The class is only usable in the context of a single .c file. As a code
> protection it makes perfect sense to me.
Ah, yes. So it is. Fixed in the latest patch.
> It’s not yet, and I did not notice an RFC about. The event I was
On Feb 11, 2014, at 01:05 , Nathan Hjelm wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:29:57AM +0100, George Bosilca wrote:
>> Nathan,
>>
>> While this sounds like an optimization for highly specific application
>> behavior, it is justifiable under some usage scenarios. I have several
>> issues with th
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:29:57AM +0100, George Bosilca wrote:
> Nathan,
>
> While this sounds like an optimization for highly specific application
> behavior, it is justifiable under some usage scenarios. I have several issues
> with the patch. Here are the minor ones:
>
> 1. It does modifica
Nathan,
While this sounds like an optimization for highly specific application
behavior, it is justifiable under some usage scenarios. I have several issues
with the patch. Here are the minor ones:
1. It does modifications that are nor necessary to the patch itself (as an
example removal of th
