Jeff Squyres, le Fri 02 Oct 2009 13:53:48 -0400, a écrit :
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >I also think inlining doesn't bring much performance compared to the
> >cost of parsing a cpuset.
> >
> >> You'll get warnings from the linker about how the struct changed  
> >size.
> >
> >Ah, in the static case, yes.  But in our case cpusets would always be
> >dynamically allocated.
> It's not the size of the array in the cpuset struct that matters --  
> it's the size of the struct.

Sure, I understood this.

> Are there any global constants akin to MPI_COMM_WORLD? (e.g., an empty  
> cpuset, or a full cpuset)

No, that's why I'm saying in our case we don't have the problem.

> I *think* that we only run into problems if we use global constants
> provided by the library.

Yes, and we don't.

> But it might be worth testing the example I sent before, even with
> dynamically allocated handles.

Should work perfectly.

> Linkers are deep, dark voodoo with unexpected corner cases in round
> rooms. :-)

Sure, but linkers don't have anything to do with malloc().


Reply via email to