On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@inria.fr> wrote: > >> 1. You reverted an actual grammar fix: "support" -> "supported". > > Oops, I missed that part, sorry.
Cool -- you just put that back; thanks. > No, but as of now there is just no way that binding can be supported > without knowing anything about the OS. There is simply no standard way > of binding a thread as of now. I don't see a reason why we could let > users lose time with trying to determine whether it actually works or > not while it will just never work with the current codebase, and I doubt > we will ever see a really standard OS way of binding threads. If that > ever happens, we can still change the phrasing here, while letting the > user be unsure about the current state means making him lose time. I see where you're coming from. I still don't think that "likely" is bad to have, but this likely isn't worth arguing about. (I'll likely just disable the email hook, re-commit "likely", re-enable the email hook, and YOU'LL NEVER KNOW! WORLD DOMINATION!! ;-) ) (and now that I'm consciously thinking about it, I am also likely to over-use "likely" for at least the rest of today) -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com _______________________________________________ hwloc-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/hwloc-devel