On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: >> FWIW: Having lstopo plugins for output would obviate the need for having two >> executable names. > > Well, it seems overkill to me. It makes sense to me to have both > xlstopo and lstopo.
Ick. FWIW, I dislike having two executables. I like having one executable that can adapt itself to whatever is loaded / available on the system. :-) But if I'm in the minority, no problem... If I'm not, I can work on a patch to see if it would be horribly disruptive... -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
