Hello,
In the case of single process the MPI_Ibarrier call fails (seg. fault).
Request object does not initialized in this function (LibNBC is not
called for it).
The following example fails on Open MPI 1.9a1r26779:
$ cat ibarrier_test.c
#include
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
MPI_Re
Thanks for the bug report. This has been fixed in r26784 of the trunk and
should be in tonight's tarball.
Brian
On 7/11/12 6:09 AM, "Mikhail Kurnosov" wrote:
>Hello,
>
>In the case of single process the MPI_Ibarrier call fails (seg. fault).
>Request object does not initialized in this function
I thought i would be 100 at the end of that do loop.
$%#@#@$% Fortran. :-(
On Jul 11, 2012, at 12:25 PM, wrote:
> Author: eugene (Eugene Loh)
> Date: 2012-07-11 12:25:09 EDT (Wed, 11 Jul 2012)
> New Revision: 2002
>
> Log:
> Apply the "right value when calling waitall" fix to
> all ibm/colle
Hi,
I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but I was working on Open MPI support
for MOSIX in the form of several MCA modules (turned out to be BTL,
ODLS, and RAS). It's pretty much finished now, thanks to your help (I
got many useful tips and clarifications from this mailing list). As I
said befo
Brian caught it. I simply applied the change to the other ibarrier_f*
tests. With this and your "remove bozo debug statements" (+ sleeps)
putbacks (26768/trunk and 26769/v1.7), I'm hoping our ibarrier_f* MTT
time-outs will disappear.
On 7/11/2012 9:26 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I thought i wou
Ya, I saw Brian's commit, too.
Ah, I see what happens -- i is actually 101, not 100. Frackin' Fortran...
On Jul 11, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> Brian caught it. I simply applied the change to the other ibarrier_f* tests.
> With this and your "remove bozo debug statements" (+ slee
The value of i is exactly as it would be in C for the value of a loop control
variable at loop exit. (As opposed to being undefined, which is what is used
to be.) This dates from Fortran-77.
Larry Baker
US Geological Survey
650-329-5608
ba...@usgs.gov
On 11 Jul 2012, at 10:44 AM, Jeff Squyr
Ya, probably so.
But I'm still going to blame Fortran for that bug. Just 'cause it's easier.
:-)
(I also spent all morning writing an MPI_COMM_SPAWN_MULTIPLE test *in Fortran*,
which was exceedingly painful, and I had to send it off to a Fortran expert to
tell me what I did wrong... So my f
