Thanks!
Don't forget the close the bug (#3845).
On Oct 25, 2013, at 10:39 AM, wrote:
> Author: miked (Mike Dubman)
> Date: 2013-10-25 10:39:37 EDT (Fri, 25 Oct 2013)
> New Revision: 29519
> URL: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/29519
>
> Log:
> fix autogen warn, fixed by Roman, re
We had a few emails a little while ago, and decided that the branding should be
"oshmem" because Open SHMEM is different than (original) SHMEM.
I notice that there's still:
- shmemcc / shmemfort / shmem_info / shmemrun
--> should these all be "oshmem*" ?
- the examples are hello_shmem* and ri
Hi Jeff,
I would like to add few notes inline
Igor
On 25.10.2013 20:33, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
We had a few emails a little while ago, and decided that the branding should be
"oshmem" because Open SHMEM is different than (original) SHMEM.
I notice that there's still:
- shmemcc / shm
On Oct 25, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Igor Ivanov wrote:
>> - shmemcc / shmemfort / shmem_info / shmemrun
>> --> should these all be "oshmem*" ?
>>
>> - the examples are hello_shmem* and ring_shmem*
>> --> should these all be "*_oshmem*" ?
> These examples are not OpenSHMEM specific.
>>
>> - there
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> We're shipping oshmem, not shmem, so why not call them oshmem examples
> [that also happen to be shmem examples] -- rather than shmem examples [that
> also happen to be oshmem examples]?
My USD 0.02:
If the examples were written
i thought I mentioned this before, but the compilers should be oshcc, oshCC,
and oshfort, with the starter named oshrun, according to Appendix C of the spec.
Brian
--
Brian W. Barrett
Scalable System Software Group
Sandia National Laboratories
From:
