Jeff - I think falling back to GCC built-in if available is a rational idea. We've been using them in another project without any problems. They are potentially a bit slower than the hand-crafted assembly because they generally use full memory barriers when we only need read memory barriers, but that's not a bad thing for the portability case.
There's still an issue with the high resolution timers, but there are actually rational fall-backs for that, so we're probably ok there. Brian On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > *** This mail mainly targeted at Brian and George *** > > Debian maintainer Manuel Prinz raised an idea to me this morning: > > The Debian community compiles and tests Debian on a huge range of hardware > platforms. It's been a long-standing issue that Open MPI doesn't support all > of them (e.g., MIPS, ARM, ...). Specifically, we don't have assembly to > support all of those platforms. > > The Debian community asks: if building with a recent GCC on one of these > platforms where OMPI doesn't have native assembly, can we fall back to the > GCC intrinsic atomics? > > https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/2495 > > Additionally, there's then OpenPA project from Argonne that supports a bunch > of atomics on a bunch of platforms. George told me at one point that he > didn't think it was sufficient for Open MPI's needs. Do we know if that's > still true? > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > >
