On Jan 7, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet <gilles.gouaillar...@iferc.org> wrote:
> Talking about thread support ... > > i made a RFC several monthes ago in order to remove the > --with-threads option from configure > > /* ompi requires pthreads, no more, no less */ Did we decide this? (that OMPI *requires* pthreads) I *think* we did. But I just want to make sure that my (terrible) memory is correct... > it was accepted, but i could not find the time to implement it ... > > basically, i can see three steps : > > 1) remove the --with-threads option from configure, check for pthreads, and > set the > OPAL_HAVE_POSIX_THREADS macro to 1 Sounds good. > 2) step 1) + remove #ifdef OPAL_HAVE_POSIX_THREADS and remove dead code > (e.g. #ifndef OPAL_HAVE_POSIX_THREADS) Also make configure fail if pthreads are not available. > 3) step 1) + step 2) + remove the OPAL thread abstraction layer > > is it a good idea to implement steps 2) and 3) ? > i mean, if there is a chance we might support an other threading model in the > future, > it might be better to keep some dead code for the time being. I think the consensus was that pthreads are fine for the foreseeable future. If we need to re-add the threading abstraction layer, it's annoying, but not difficult. Might as well simplify what we have, since there's no other threading system on the horizon that we need to worry about. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
