This should have been fixed by r30226 - was it not?
On Jan 11, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > 2. oshem_info reports oshmem:bindings:fort:yes unconditionally > NO CHANGE (that I am aware of) > >
This should have been fixed by r30226 - was it not?
On Jan 11, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > 2. oshem_info reports oshmem:bindings:fort:yes unconditionally > NO CHANGE (that I am aware of) > >