On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> To summarize the out-of-line assembler changes of this patch:
> - The patch is functionally correct for ARMv7 (which we know, because the code
> - It also appears to be functionally correct for ARMv6, given reports of
> - It *might* be functiona
On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:27 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
> While we always strive to improve this functionality, it was available as a
> separate software packages for quite some time.
What separate software package are you referring to?
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporate legal infor
On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:24 AM, "Barrett, Brian W" wrote:
> That's not entirely true; there's some state that's required to be held by
> the RTE framework (the ompi_process_info structure), but it's minimal and
> does not scale with number of peers in a job.
Sorry - guess I don't consider that "st
While we always strive to improve this functionality, it was available as a
separate software packages for quite some time.
George.
On Jan 23, 2013, at 08:05 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Are you going to develop anything further with regards to this functionality,
> and target that s
That's not entirely true; there's some state that's required to be held by
the RTE framework (the ompi_process_info structure), but it's minimal and
does not scale with number of peers in a job.
In terms of interface, there's now three MPI frameworks which encompass
the set of functionality the MP
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. There is no state at all in the
MPI layer - just a set of function calls. Each component in the ompi/mca/rte
framework is required to map those function calls to their own implementation.
The function calls themselves are just a rename of the curren
Hi Jeff,
To summarize the out-of-line assembler changes of this patch:
- The patch is functionally correct for ARMv7 (which we know, because the
code
doesn't change from the existing sources, it simply renames the file).
- It also appears to be functionally correct for ARMv6, given reports of
Are you going to develop anything further with regards to this functionality,
and target that stuff for v1.7? Or should all of this just wait until 1.9?
(I don't really care either way; I'm asking out of curiosity)
On Jan 22, 2013, at 7:24 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> Nobody cared about error
Brian,
First - thanks. I am very happy this is proceeding.
General question here - do you have any idea how much global state sits
behind the current implementation ? What I am trying to gauge at what level of
granularity one can bring in additional capabilities.
I have not looked in deta
