Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2013-10-12 Thread Brice Goglin
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,

[hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2013-10-12 Thread Ralph Castain
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-31 Thread Samuel Thibault
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-31 Thread Brice Goglin
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...?

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-30 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
;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"

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-30 Thread Brice Goglin
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-30 Thread Chris Samuel
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-27 Thread Bert Wesarg
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Jeff Squyres
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Brice Goglin
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Bert Wesarg
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Jeff Squyres
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. :-) > *

Re: [hwloc-devel] Strange difference

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
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