Then I would suggest you stick with "oshmem" to be clear you mean OpenSHMEM
On Oct 18, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Igor Ivanov <igor.iva...@itseez.com> wrote: > As I know OpenSHMEM is an effort to create a standardized SHMEM library for C > and Fortran. SGI’s SHMEM API is the baseline for OpenSHMEM Specification 1.0. > Most of OpenSHMEM API functions can be found in different SHMEM API > implementations but there are functions that are specific for SGI`s, Cray`s > etc products. > > SIte www.shmem.org says that "The SHMEM™ Application Programming Interface > (API) definition and the SHMEM trademark are the property of SGI. " > > Igor > > On 18.10.2013 16:33, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: >> On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:18 AM, Igor Ivanov <igor.iva...@itseez.com> wrote: >> >>> Is there naming convention related configure options in OMPI? >>> Do you see any objections about --enable-oshmem-xxx or they must be >>> replaced with --enable-shmem-xxx? >> Hmm. Good question. >> >> I don't know enough about shmem vs. open shmem to say. Is the API the same? >> If the API is the same, then you make a good point -- perhaps we should >> replace all --with-oshmem-xxx and --enable-oshmem-xxx with --with-shmem-xxx >> and --enable-shmem-xxx, respectively. >> >> Supporting this view, we have several --with-mpi-xxx switches (i.e., we >> don't have --with-ompi-xxx switches). But this works because Open MPI is >> just an implementation of MPI. Forgive my shmem ignorance: is the oshmem/ >> layer an implementation of Shmem? Or an implementation of Open Shmem? (is >> there a difference between the two?) >> > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
