Re: [OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] which info is needed for SIGSEGV inJava foropenmpi-dev-124-g91e9686on Solaris

2014-10-28 Thread Ralph Castain
> On Oct 27, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet > wrote: > > Ralph, > > On 2014/10/28 0:46, Ralph Castain wrote: >> Actually, I propose to also remove that issue. Simple enough to use a >> hash_table_32 to handle the jobids, and let that point to a >>

Re: [OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] which info is needed for SIGSEGV inJava foropenmpi-dev-124-g91e9686on Solaris

2014-10-27 Thread Gilles Gouaillardet
Ralph, On 2014/10/28 0:46, Ralph Castain wrote: > Actually, I propose to also remove that issue. Simple enough to use a > hash_table_32 to handle the jobids, and let that point to a > hash_table_32 of vpids. Since we rarely have more than one jobid > anyway, the memory overhead actually decreases

Re: [OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] which info is needed for SIGSEGV inJava foropenmpi-dev-124-g91e9686on Solaris

2014-10-27 Thread Ralph Castain
> On Oct 26, 2014, at 11:12 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet > wrote: > > Ralph, > > this is also a solution. > the pro is it seems more lightweight than PR #249 > the two cons i can see are : > - opal_process_name_t alignment goes from 64 to 32 bits > - some functions

Re: [OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] which info is needed for SIGSEGV inJava foropenmpi-dev-124-g91e9686on Solaris

2014-10-27 Thread Gilles Gouaillardet
Ralph, this is also a solution. the pro is it seems more lightweight than PR #249 the two cons i can see are : - opal_process_name_t alignment goes from 64 to 32 bits - some functions (opal_hash_table_*) takes an uint64_t as argument so we still need to use memcpy in order to * guarantee 64

Re: [OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] which info is needed for SIGSEGV inJava foropenmpi-dev-124-g91e9686on Solaris

2014-10-26 Thread Ralph Castain
Just took a glance thru 249 and have a few suggestions on it - will pass them along tomorrow. I think the right solution is to (a) dump opal_identifier_t in favor of using opal_process_name_t everywhere in the opal layer, (b) typedef orte_process_name_t to opal_process_name_t, and (c) leave

Re: [OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] OMPI users] which info is needed for SIGSEGV inJava foropenmpi-dev-124-g91e9686on Solaris

2014-10-26 Thread Gilles Gouaillardet
No :-( I need some extra work to stop declaring orte_process_name_t and ompi_process_name_t variables. #249 will make things much easier. One option is to use opal_process_name_t everywhere or typedef orte and ompi types to the opal one. An other (lightweight but error prone imho) is to change