Hi there,
has anybody tried to compile ompi trunk with autoconf 2.66 ? It fails when
configuring romio with the following error:
=== Processing subdir: /nics/c/home/bouteill/ompi/trunk/ompi/mca/io/romio/romio
--- Found configure.in|ac; running autoreconf...
autoreconf: Entering directory `.'
It works for me using autoconf 2.68 - I get these warnings, but no failures:
configure.ac:1045: warning: AC_LANG_CONFTEST: no AC_LANG_SOURCE call detected
in body
../../lib/autoconf/lang.m4:194: AC_LANG_CONFTEST is expanded from...
../../lib/autoconf/general.m4:2662: _AC_LINK_IFELSE is expanded
On Sep 28, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> has anybody tried to compile ompi trunk with autoconf 2.66 ? It fails when
> configuring romio with the following error:
> === Processing subdir:
> /nics/c/home/bouteill/ompi/trunk/ompi/mca/io/romio/romio
> --- Found
Please give it a shot...
http://www.open-mpi.org/software/ompi/v1.4/
Ralph
Le 28 sept. 2010 à 17:55, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
> On Sep 28, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> has anybody tried to compile ompi trunk with autoconf 2.66 ? It fails when
>> configuring romio with the following error:
>> === Processing subdir:
>>
Le 28 sept. 2010 à 18:10, Aurélien Bouteiller a écrit :
>
> Le 28 sept. 2010 à 17:55, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
>
>> On Sep 28, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller wrote:
>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> has anybody tried to compile ompi trunk with autoconf 2.66 ? It fails when
>>> configuring
On Sep 28, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller wrote:
>>> This looks like Libtool or Automake isn't installed properly...?
> You were right on that one. The system provided automake on Kraken is broken.
> Fixed by installing my own.
Keep in mind (from HACKING):
2. Build and install the
IU is going to try to track down some of the problems we've been having with
the SVN commit messages (not) closing Trac tickets. They're going to clone the
OMPI Trac setup and try some stuff. This will cause some spurrious emails to
our svn mailing lists -- please ignore these.
--
Jeff
The bz2 tarball of hwloc 1.0.2 was 2.1MB. hwloc 1.1 will be at least
2.7MB. I know that bandwidth is free, but I am still not confortable
with the size increasing that much.
Obviously, the problem comes from tarballs under tests/linux:
605774 28 sept. 08:12 tests/linux/256ppc-8n8s4t.tar.gz
The bitmap branch looks good to me. There might still be some
documentation/comments to update, but nothing big. Given how intrusive
this branch is, I'd rather merge it early instead of fixing conflicts in
other branches for a long time :)
What I need first is somebody to check my pragma at the
On 28 Sep 2010, at 07:27, Brice Goglin wrote:
> The bz2 tarball of hwloc 1.0.2 was 2.1MB. hwloc 1.1 will be at least
> 2.7MB. I know that bandwidth is free, but I am still not confortable
> with the size increasing that much.
>
> Any other idea?
There is probably some mileage in simply
Le 28/09/2010 10:26, Ashley Pittman a écrit :
> On 28 Sep 2010, at 07:27, Brice Goglin wrote:
>
>
>> The bz2 tarball of hwloc 1.0.2 was 2.1MB. hwloc 1.1 will be at least
>> 2.7MB. I know that bandwidth is free, but I am still not confortable
>> with the size increasing that much.
>>
>> Any
Brice Goglin, le Fri 24 Sep 2010 13:31:06 +0200, a écrit :
> By the way, what's the proper way to do the latter?
> #pragma weak hwloc_cpuset_foo = hwloc_bitmap_foo ?
> use __hwloc_attribute_alias instead ?
There is no proper way unfortunately: the Mach-O format used by MacOS
does not support such
Eh. Other than not liking it, is there a *problem* with the tarball getting
larger?
We could also make 2 tarballs if you really care - one with the tests and one
without.
Sent from my PDA. No type good.
On Sep 28, 2010, at 2:28 AM, "Brice Goglin" wrote:
> The bz2
Le 28/09/2010 11:29, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
> Brice Goglin, le Fri 24 Sep 2010 13:31:06 +0200, a écrit :
>
>> By the way, what's the proper way to do the latter?
>> #pragma weak hwloc_cpuset_foo = hwloc_bitmap_foo ?
>> use __hwloc_attribute_alias instead ?
>>
> There is no proper way
On Sep 28, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Jeff, can you check on your Mac that lstopo from 1.0 works with libhwloc
> from the latest bitmap branch?
I had to fake out the VERSION information, but after doing that, it works. So
I think we're good.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.1a1r2521
Start time: Tue Sep 28 21:01:02 EDT 2010
End time: Tue Sep 28 21:03:00 EDT 2010
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
17 matches
Mail list logo