On 7/29/07, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
>
> > In the mean time, I would prefer to follow the standard as close as
> > possible. If not, some external, stupid test suite (like the one I
> > have for mip4py) would report that OMPI is wrong about this poi
I just added a link to the Coverity login page to the "Developer"
section of the wiki. Let me know if you want a login to see the
results (you must be an Open MPI Member and agree to abide by the
Coverity policy stated here: http://scan.coverity.com/policy.html).
Nightly scans will likely
On Jul 30, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
In the mean time, I would prefer to follow the standard as close as
possible. If not, some external, stupid test suite (like the one I
have for mip4py) would report that OMPI is wrong about this point.
What exactly are you testing for?
Equal
In the data-type section there is an advice to implementors that
state that a copy can simply increase the reference count if
applicable. So, we might want to apply the same logic here ...
george.
On Jul 30, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jul 30, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Lisandro Dalc
MPI_Lookup_name() is supposed to work on v1.2 branch? I cannot get it
working (it fails with MPI_ERR_NAME).
--
Lisandro Dalcín
---
Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC)
Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC)
Consejo Nacion
That's a quite complex thing to do. You have to have a persistent
daemon in order to have this feature working. If you dig a little bit
on the mailing list, you will be able to find an email (around 2 or 3
weeks old now) from ralph which explain how this stuff work and what
you have to do i
On 7/30/07, George Bosilca wrote:
> In the data-type section there is an advice to implementors that
> state that a copy can simply increase the reference count if
> applicable. So, we might want to apply the same logic here ...
BTW, you just mentioned other obscure case. Do this apply to NAMED
d
