On Nov 8, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:25 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
>> However, based on what we have in the trunk today, Open MPI doesn't follow
>> that document. As Ralph pinpointed it, the current version work with several
>> tools (tv, stat, padb) as is,
On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:25 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
> However, based on what we have in the trunk today, Open MPI doesn't follow
> that document. As Ralph pinpointed it, the current version work with several
> tools (tv, stat, padb) as is, so that means the tools do not really follow
> that docu
On Nov 8, 2011, at 8:25 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 07:52 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>> To be clear: that document simply standardizes what MPI implementations are
>> supposed to provide in their MPIR implementation (prior to this, MPI
>> implementations tended to have subtl
On Nov 8, 2011, at 07:52 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
> To be clear: that document simply standardizes what MPI implementations are
> supposed to provide in their MPIR implementation (prior to this, MPI
> implementations tended to have subtle differences between their MPIR
> implementations, which we
On Nov 7, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Best guess: from what I've seen, most debuggers don't seem to conform to what
> the MPI Forum has "accepted". It doesn't appear that the vendors and debugger
> developers pay too much attention to that document, possibly because it (a)
> came a
On Nov 8, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Ashley Pittman wrote:
> I agree that it's not clear this, I don't think this spec is well understood
> by anyone, indeed it wasn't originally written with the intention of becoming
> a specification at all. I've looked at it a couple of times but never used
> this
On 8 Nov 2011, at 00:59, George Bosilca wrote:
> A started process is defined as being our mpirun. In Open MPI
> MPIR_partial_attach_ok is defined, so the tool will suppose that we provide a
> means to synchronize the processes not based on MPIR_debug_gate. Therefore
> only one behavior if acc
On Nov 7, 2011, at 22:26 , Ralph Castain wrote:
> I didn't say the eventually wouldn't, George. I was trying to indicate that
> they may not be there yet, and our current code has been tested with their
> current releases - not what they eventually might release.
>
> As to who wanted this "stan
I didn't say the eventually wouldn't, George. I was trying to indicate that
they may not be there yet, and our current code has been tested with their
current releases - not what they eventually might release.
As to who wanted this "standard"...I was there during the discussions about
whether o
They better do conform to what they asked us to "accept". If wasn't that the
MPI Forum members were eager to put the tool interface into the standard, we
were kind of forced to. By whom … well by the tool vendors to promote a certain
homogeneity.
george.
On Nov 7, 2011, at 20:34 , Ralph Cast
I can't speak to what is in ompi_debuggers.c as I believe Jeff wrote most of
that. However, what is there has been tested and works with TotalView and a
couple of other debuggers.
Best guess: from what I've seen, most debuggers don't seem to conform to what
the MPI Forum has "accepted". It does
11 matches
Mail list logo
