Thanks Brian, The code in trunk already generates: oshcc oshfort oshmem_info oshrun
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Barrett, Brian W <bwba...@sandia.gov>wrote: > i thought I mentioned this before, but the compilers should be oshcc, > oshCC, and oshfort, with the starter named oshrun, according to Appendix C > of the spec. > > Brian > > -- > Brian W. Barrett > Scalable System Software Group > Sandia National Laboratories > ________________________________________ > From: devel [devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] on behalf of Jeff Squyres > (jsquyres) [jsquy...@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:32 PM > To: Open MPI Developers > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [OMPI devel] shmem vs. oshmem > > On Oct 25, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Igor Ivanov <igor.iva...@itseez.com> wrote: > > >> - shmemcc / shmemfort / shmem_info / shmemrun > >> --> should these all be "oshmem*" ? > >> > >> - the examples are hello_shmem* and ring_shmem* > >> --> should these all be "*_oshmem*" ? > > These examples are not OpenSHMEM specific. > >> > >> - there are header files named shmem* > >> --> I'm guessing the names "shmem.h" and "shmem.fh" are mandated > > OpenSHMEM specification says > > So ya, those names are standardized -- no problem. > > But shouldn't we be branding everything else as oshmem? Even if the > examples are not oshmem-specific. > > We're shipping oshmem, not shmem, so why not call them oshmem examples > [that also happen to be shmem examples] -- rather than shmem examples [that > also happen to be oshmem examples]? > > -- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >
