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(). Samuel
