On Jan 10, 2014, at 10:57 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote:
> This is not the same example as before. This example is correct, it does not > rely on the send being eagerly completed. I know. :-) Just to tie up this thread for the web archives: >> My point (which I guess I didn't make well) is that COMM_FREE is collective, >> which we all know does not necessarily mean synchronizing. If hcoll >> teardown is going to add synchronization, there could be situations that >> might be dangerous (if OMPI doesn't already synchronize during COMM_FREE, >> which is why I asked the question). -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
