Re: [OMPI devel] ompi_mpi_abort

On Aug 25, 2007, at 4:32 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: I unfortunately do not remember whether I put that recursive protection in to fix a real problem or whether I was trying to be (incorrectly) proactive... The more I think about this, the more I think I put that protection in because of a real

Re: [OMPI devel] ompi_mpi_abort

On Saturday 25 August 2007 18:12, Brian Barrett wrote: > > 1. We have logic in ompi_mpi_abort to prevent recursive invocation > > (ompi_mpi_abort.c:60): > > > > /* Protection for recursive invocation */ > > if (have_been_invoked) { > > return OMPI_SUCCESS; > > } > >

Re: [OMPI devel] ompi_mpi_abort

On Aug 25, 2007, at 7:10 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: 1. We have logic in ompi_mpi_abort to prevent recursive invocation (ompi_mpi_abort.c:60): /* Protection for recursive invocation */ if (have_been_invoked) { return OMPI_SUCCESS; } have_been_invoked = true; This,

[OMPI devel] ompi_mpi_abort

David Maxwell has finally gotten the Coverity automation stuff working to download our nightly trunk tarballs and run them through their tool. I was skimming through the results this morning and noticed one that looked odd to me: in osc_rdma_component.c:619, we have: 619

Re: [OMPI devel] More memory troubles with vapi

On 8/24/07, Jeff Squyres wrote: > > Hmm. If you compile Open MPI with no memory manager, then it > *shouldn't* be Open MPI's fault (unless there's a leak in the mvapi > BTL...?). Verify that you did not actually compile Open MPI with a > memory manager by running "ompi_info|