Yo Ralph,
The reason is that get_type_depth() returns negative numbers for errors
(when the type doesn't exist or exists multiple times in the topology).
topology_get_depth() never fails, so always returns >=0.
And indeed that's annoying when the compiler is picky.
Brice
Le 12/10/2013 20:37,
Yo guys
I was doing some work that involved traversing the hwloc topo tree, and
encountered the following odd discrepancy.
hwloc_topology_get_depth => returns "unsigned"
hwloc_get_type_depth => returns "int"
Why the difference? Makes it hard sometimes to avoid the "comparison between
Brice Goglin, le Wed 31 Mar 2010 11:37:17 +0200, a écrit :
> We might need to replace some occurences of "logical processor" in the
> doc with "processing unit". Or use both from time to time to make it
> clear that it's very similar (and explain the difference somewhere).
I'd say keep it in the
Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Is it a crime to use the full word "Processor"? At least on my machine, the
> output width is still far less than 80 characters, so the full word should be
> no problem. But I don't know if there are other strange topologies out there
> that would take up more space...?
;hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org>
Sent: Tue Mar 30 05:40:30 2010
Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:23:52 am Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I think that we need to differentiate between the different meanings of
> "CPU" here -- CPU could also mean "socket"
Chris Samuel wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:15:50 am Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>
>> At least on my machine, the output width is still far less than 80
>> characters, so the full word should be no problem. But I don't know if
>> there are other strange topologies out there that would take up more
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:23:52 am Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I think that we need to differentiate between the different meanings of
> "CPU" here -- CPU could also mean "socket", for example...
...so can processor. :-(Really the only unambiguous way I've come across
(so far) describing things is
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 01:50, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>
>> > Fair enough. How about still just keeping "P" in the graphic output,
>> > then? But "processor" in the prettyprint?
>>
>> IIRC, somebody said "PU" (for "processing
On Mar 26, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> > Fair enough. How about still just keeping "P" in the graphic output, then?
> > But "processor" in the prettyprint?
>
> IIRC, somebody said "PU" (for "processing unit") could be a good
> solution. Otherwise, I am ok with "Proc" or
Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>
>> That's still very large. We are going toward dozens of cores on each
>> sockets, we really need to keep them small :)
>>
>
> Fair enough. How about still just keeping "P" in the graphic output, then?
> But
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 17:05:39 -0400, a écrit :
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> > > Is it a crime to use the full word "Processor"? At least on my machine,
> > > the output width is still far less than 80 characters, so the full word
> > > should be no
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 22:05, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>> > Is it a crime to use the full word "Processor"? At least on my machine,
>> > the output width is still far less than 80 characters, so the full word
>> > should
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 14:15:50 -0400, a écrit :
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>
> > > I like "Proc" instead of "P" even for the non-v output. :-)
> >
> > I am not against it, but I don't remember the reason for the initial
> > change. Maybe because "processor" is
On Mar 26, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> The reason was that the "phys" attribute is mostly useless for anything
> but Proc and NUMANode.
>
> Current other differences when adding -v are:
> * "Proc" if -v instead of "P"
I like "Proc" instead of "P" even for the non-v output. :-)
> *
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 10:47:15 -0400, a écrit :
> The output of "lstopo -l" is different than "lstopo -l -v" -- is that
> intentional?
Well, yes, it is supposed to display less information :)
Which precise difference are you referring to?
Samuel
> -
> [7:45] svbu-mpi:~/svn/hwloc
15 matches
Mail list logo