On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> But giving some flexibility for roadblocks, can we say "this quarter"?
Cool.
> Apart from our *cough* convoluted architecture vs. processor naming scheme...
> It should be ARMv4, ARMv5, ARMv6 and ARMv7.
Fixed in the README; thanks.
>> --> D
On 26/01/13 00:05, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
Here's what I have done:
1. Committed your patch to v1.6. George's patch was not committed to
v1.6.
Many thanks.
2. I opened https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/3481 to track
your proposal of re-implementing/revamping the ARM ASM code.
FYI:
I currently have QEMU-based ARM platform I use for testing other s/w:
+ a single-cpu ARMv5 system running Debian Squeeze
+ a dual-core ARMv7 system running Ubuntu Precise
Since these are EMULATED platforms, they are a bit on the slow side, making
periodic MTT runs untenable.
However, I
On Jan 25, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>> Mmm. Ok. So is this a correct list of what is supported right now (i.e.,
>> in v1.6 with your patch)
>> ARM4: no
>> ARM5: no
>> ARM6: sorta (not multi-core, or anywhere we would need barriers)
>> ARM7: yes
>
> Correct, that is what is suppo
On 24/01/13 22:12, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
I tested this patch in v1.6 and v1.7 on my Pi, and it seems to work
just fine. "make check" passes all the ASM tests.
Just to be perfectly clear: it wouldn't on ARMv5 though, and the ARMv6
ASM
On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> OK. In which case I probably _should_ be on that list.
> *cough* might I however suggest that a statement to that effect is added
> to http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/ompi.php ?
Fair point. Done.
>> I tested this patch in v1.6 and v1.
On 24/01/13 02:54, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
[snip] Basic point is - this is an insufficiently validated patch
referred to as "an ugly kludge" by the original author (Jon
Masters@Red Hat), who created it to be able to include it in the
Fedora ARMv5 port. I has previously provided suggestions
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
gards,
Leif
> -Original Message-
> From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> Sent: 22 January 2013 16:41
> To: Open MPI Developers
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] New ARM patch
>
> Leif --
>
>
Leif --
We talked about this a bit on our weekly call today.
Just to be sure: are you saying that George's patches are *functionally
correct* for ARM5/6/7 (and broken for ARM 4), but it would be better to
organize the code a bit better?
If that is correct, was ARM4 working before?
If ARM4 wa
Hi George,
Any chance of r27882 being reverted?
As I told the Fedora guys when that patch originally surfaced[1],
I'm not overly fond of
- copying source files around as part of the configure step
- having separate source files for ARMv6 and ARMv7, when those differences
should be easily separa
11 matches
Mail list logo
