On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:37 , Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Nathan T. Hjelm wrote: > >> Yes, and I completely agree. I was simply trying to keep it consistent in >> case there is something I don't know about the heterogeneous case. >> >> I increased the size of the 64 bit member because there is no uint128 type. > > Ah, I see. > > I would put the other sizes back, at a minimum. There should be no need to > increase those. > > George -- comments? Should this be a new key fields (128, with 2 > uint64_t's)? If this is only for large messages, is the extra 8 bytes a > concern?
Without the vader documentation it is difficult to asses the needs for the 128 bits key. I tried to find the documentation online, but every this I found they use a __s64 type. Which function exactly requires 128bits integers? Where is the call to this function in the vader BTL? george. > > -- > 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
