woot!!! Thanks Paul and Jeff!
On Jan 22, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> After the 1.7 tests on the XLF, Open64 and PathScale platforms complete I'll
> be testing the trunk on those systems with the compiler-appropriate
> --
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> After the 1.7 tests on the XLF, Open64 and PathScale platforms complete
> I'll be testing the trunk on those systems with the compiler-appropriate
> --enable-mpi-fortran= settings.
The following are results (for trunk) for four compilers
Jeff,
Sorry to hear you spent the day dealing with both fortran and autoconf.
I spent mine dealing with my auto insurance company claims department.
So, we both had miserable days but you win.
The 1.7 tarball was ready by the time I read your message and I've launched
a flock of testers.
Were the
Ok, here's my update: I fixed a bunch of issues in the Fortran support today;
most are minor, but they took a while to verify (and some are slated for v1.7.5
because they aren't critical). I also added the ability to disable building
the mpi_f08 module.
Here's what's on the trunk / v1.7, and w
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
>
> + PathScale and Open64 which fail building in ompi/mpi/fortran/use-mpi-f08/
>
I implied, but forgot to state the following explicitly:
Both PathScale and Open64 can build the Fortran support present in 1.7.3
(verified today).
So, as Ralp
Update: I've been working all day on Fortran issues (pulling on one
Paul-Fortran--sweater-thread revealed several other issues :-( ).
I'll be sending an update soon...
On Jan 22, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> My main co
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> My main concern with 1.7.4 at the moment stems from all the Fortran
> changes we pushed into that release - this occurred *after* 1.7.3, and so
> those problems represent a regression in the 1.7 series.
Unless I am missing something, the c
ou remind me again about why the 1.8.0 by mid-March is a requirement?
>
> Thanks,
> Rolf
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
> >Castain
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:41 PM
> >To: Ope
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:41 PM
> >To: Open MPI Developers
> >Subject: [OMPI devel] 1.7.4 status update
> >
> >Hi folks
> >
> >I think it is safe to say that we are not going to get a release
> candidate out
> >tonight - more Fortran p
stain
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:41 PM
>> To: Open MPI Developers
>> Subject: [OMPI devel] 1.7.4 status update
>>
>> Hi folks
>>
>> I think it is safe to say that we are not going to get a release candidate
>> out
>> tonight - more For
n MPI Developers
>Subject: [OMPI devel] 1.7.4 status update
>
>Hi folks
>
>I think it is safe to say that we are not going to get a release candidate out
>tonight - more Fortran problems have surfaced, along with the need to
>complete the ROMIO review. I have therefore concluded w
Hi folks
I think it is safe to say that we are not going to get a release candidate out
tonight - more Fortran problems have surfaced, along with the need to complete
the ROMIO review. I have therefore concluded we cannot release 1.7.4 this week.
This leaves us with a couple of options:
1. con
12 matches
Mail list logo
