On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:22 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > 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...)
Sure - OPAL_SOS will supersede all this anyway. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
