On Aug 25, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I unfortunately do not remember whether I put that recursive
protection in to fix a real problem or whether I was trying to be
(incorrectly) proactive...
The more I think about this, the more I think I put that protection
in because of a real
On Aug 25, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Rainer Keller wrote:
/* Protection for recursive invocation */
if (have_been_invoked) {
return OMPI_SUCCESS;
}
have_been_invoked = true;
This, IMHO, is a wrong thing to do. The intent of ompi_mpi_abort()
was that it never returned. Bu
On Saturday 25 August 2007 18:12, Brian Barrett wrote:
> > 1. We have logic in ompi_mpi_abort to prevent recursive invocation
> > (ompi_mpi_abort.c:60):
> >
> > /* Protection for recursive invocation */
> > if (have_been_invoked) {
> > return OMPI_SUCCESS;
> > }
> > hav
On Aug 25, 2007, at 7:10 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
1. We have logic in ompi_mpi_abort to prevent recursive invocation
(ompi_mpi_abort.c:60):
/* Protection for recursive invocation */
if (have_been_invoked) {
return OMPI_SUCCESS;
}
have_been_invoked = true;
This, IMH
