On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:37:41PM +0000, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) wrote: > On Feb 19, 2014, at 6:36 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: > > > There is one minor thing I would suggest to change. In your patch > > in_unexpected_list is defined as a bool, which translates to an int on most > > platforms. > > This statement isn't true. sizeof(bool)==1 on my Mac and on our x86_64 Linux > cluster at Cisco. I only mention it because this seems to be a common myth > for some reason. > > > You can change it to an uint8_t and move the in_unexpected_list field in > > the mca_pml_ob1_comm_proc_t to allow the compiler to pack it with the > > expected_sequence. > > However, this is still a reasonable suggestion to ensure that we retain good > control of our structure sizes/layouts.
Agreed. I can create a container class for unexpected procs. Would add OBJ_NEW/OBJ_RELEASE calls in the unexpected message path but there is already allocation in that path so it shouldn't be an issue. I will work on this change and post an updated patch. -Nathan
pgpq2PQGxhEEa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
