On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > > I agree with Jeff's comments about the BTL_ERROR. How about a middle ground > > here? We let the BTLs use BTL_ERROR, eventually with some modifications, > > and we redirect the BTL_ERROR to a more advanced macro including support > > for orte_show_help? This will require going over all the BTLs, but on the > > bright side it will give us a 100% consistency on retorting errors. > > Sounds reasonable to me - I'm happy to help do it, assuming Jeff also > concurs. I assume we would then replace all the show_help calls as well? > Otherwise, I'm not sure what we gain as the direct orte_show_help dependency > will remain. Or are those calls too specialized to be replaced with BTL_ERROR?
Should this kind of thing wait for OPAL_SOS? (I mention this because the OPAL_SOS RFC will be sent to devel Real Soon Now...) -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
