On 04/04/2017 10:44 AM, FX wrote:
>> We choose mpich as a default only because it is very stable.
>
> Why are why tying ourselves to one MPI implementation?
>
> FX
>
Not tying ourselves at all. This just gives users who install gcc manually with
the ./configure process a default to use and
On April 4, 2017 at 9:48:23 AM, Jerry DeLisle
(jvdeli...@charter.net(mailto:jvdeli...@charter.net)) wrote:
> Gerald, (or who does this)
>
> Since shared memory parallel programming with Fortran is now a Standard
> feature
> of the language, we would like to support full parallelism
Resending as plain text (although now I realize my reply is at least partially
redundant since reading Andre’s email):
On April 4, 2017 at 10:44:09 AM, FX
(fxcoud...@gmail.com(mailto:fxcoud...@gmail.com)) wrote:
> > We choose mpich as a default only because it is very stable.
>
> Why are
Hi FX,
we don't really do. You can use other MPI implementation as well, albeit not all
features are implemented in all the others. For failed images support we needed
the fault tolerance support for MPI, which I see only in mpich from 3.2 on. The
other MPI implementations publicy available do
> We choose mpich as a default only because it is very stable.
Why are why tying ourselves to one MPI implementation?
FX
