On Jun 2, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Rainer Keller wrote:
no, that's not an issue. The comment is correct: For any Fortran
integer*kind
we need to have _some_ C-representation as well, otherwise we
disregard the
type (tm), see e.g. the old and resolved ticket #1094.
The representation chosen is se
I'm not entirely sure what comment is being discussed. The comment in
opal/util/arch.c (written by me long ago) should not be taken seriously - it
was nothing more than a half-hearted attempt to appease the stormy
controversy (mostly objections from George and a little from Brian) created
by my mov
On Jun 3, 2009, at 13:30 , Ralph Castain wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what comment is being discussed. The comment
in opal/util/arch.c (written by me long ago) should not be taken
seriously - it was nothing more than a half-hearted attempt to
appease the stormy controversy (mostly objectio
Ah - thanks for clarifying, George, on both counts! :-)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:43 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2009, at 13:30 , Ralph Castain wrote:
>
> I'm not entirely sure what comment is being discussed. The comment in
>> opal/util/arch.c (written by me long ago) should not be
Hello,
On Wednesday 03 June 2009 12:58:50 pm Iain Bason wrote:
> > no, that's not an issue. The comment is correct: For any Fortran
> > integer*kind we need to have _some_ C-representation as well, otherwise we
> > disregard the type (tm), see e.g. the old and resolved ticket #1094.
> > The repres
On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what comment is being discussed.
Jeff said:
I see the following comment:
** The fortran integer is dismissed here, since there is no
** platform known to me, were fortran and C-integer do not match
You can tell the int
