I think we're all amenable for this for the v1.5 branch.
Let's do the usual -- bring it in on the trunk, smooth out any issues
that arise, and, if we've branched for v1.5 already, bring it over
when it's ready. If not, it'll just be included in the branch.
So either way, it'll get into v1.
Christian Siebert wrote:
Hi Edgar,
cid's are in fact not recycled in the block algorithm. The problem is
that comm_free is not collective, so you can not make any assumptions
whether other procs have also released that communicator.
well, that's not quite correct. The MPI standard says the fol
For those not on the call today:
1. Greg's renaming stuff is coming in tomorrow. We're intentionally
breaking the "don't cause autogen-worthy changes in the middle of the
workday" guideline so that others can test manually during the day.
2. There appears to be no pressing reason to branch
It took a little longer than expected, but here's the reply from a
friend who works on Apple's C++ compilers (Doug G.; he's previously
posted on this list):
-
This is more sticky than I expected. My general feeling is that GCC
4.1 is being overly eager in producing this warning: yes, OMPI
Hmm -- this looks like a different error to me.
The <1% error rate sm error we were seeing was in MPI_INIT. This
looks like it is beyond MPI_INIT and in the sending path...?
On May 4, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Eugene Loh wrote:
Ralph Castain wrote:
> In reviewing last night's MTT tests for the 1
Different from what?
You and Terry saw something that was occurring about 0.01% of the time
during MPI_Init during add_procs. That does not seem to be what we are
seeing here.
But we have seen failures in 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 that look like the one
here. They occur more like 1% of the time and
On May 5, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
You and Terry saw something that was occurring about 0.01% of the time
during MPI_Init during add_procs. That does not seem to be what we
are
seeing here.
Right -- that's what I'm saying. It's different than the MPI_INIT
errors.
But we h
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On May 5, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
You and Terry saw something that was occurring about 0.01% of the time
during MPI_Init during add_procs. That does not seem to be what we are
seeing here.
Right -- that's what I'm saying. It's different than the MPI_INIT
