Greetings!
"Eray Ozkural (exa)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Camm Maguire wrote:
> > [Jeff]:
> > LAM and MPICH evolved completely independantly, and hence have entirely
> > different inner workings. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just
> > getting the enumerated constants in our .h files to agree -- there's a lot
> > of interworkings below the MPI layer in both LAM and MPICH, none of which
> > is common between the two systems.
> >
> > Sorry. :-(
>
> LAM and MPICH have completely different architectures so we can't
> expect to have binary compatibility. At any rate, the MPI standard does not
> specify binary compatibility.
>
Agreed, we can not expect this. And I didn't know about the standard
not specifying binary compatability -- this is good to know, thanks
for this! But in the particular cases of lam and mpich, it may be
easier than we had thought, and this would probably be a Good Thing,
IMHO.
Take care,
> Regards,
>
> --
> Eray (exa) Ozkural
> Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
>
>
--
Camm Maguire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
