On Mar 26, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Maybe for more coherency the latter should be
>
> L1 #0(32KB) + Core #0 + P #0 (phys=0)
I like the space separation -- it might be slightly easier to parse in some
cases (e.g., where you don't have strong regexp support).
How about
Brice Goglin, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 14:19:35 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 07:50:34 -0400, a écrit :
> >
> >> I think once we fix up this attribute stuff that Bert raised we should
> >> make rc1.
> >>
> >
> > We still haven't decided what to
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 07:50:34 -0400, a écrit :
>
>> I think once we fix up this attribute stuff that Bert raised we should make
>> rc1.
>>
>
> We still haven't decided what to do for printing logical vs physical
> numbers in lstopo.
>
We already
Jeff Squyres, le Fri 26 Mar 2010 07:50:34 -0400, a écrit :
> I think once we fix up this attribute stuff that Bert raised we should make
> rc1.
We still haven't decided what to do for printing logical vs physical
numbers in lstopo.
Samuel
I think once we fix up this attribute stuff that Bert raised we should make rc1.
On Mar 25, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Bert Wesarg wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:29, Brice Goglin wrote:
> >
> >> Brice Goglin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Are we doing a
Bert Wesarg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:29, Brice Goglin wrote:
>
>> Brice Goglin wrote:
>>
>>> Are we doing a 1.0-rc1 soon ?
>>>
>>>
>> Same question again :)
>>
>
> I suspect, I can't propose API changes after that, right? ;-)
>
> Bert
>
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:49, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Bert Wesarg wrote:
>
>> > Same question again :)
>>
>> I suspect, I can't propose API changes after that, right? ;-)
>
> It would be good, yes. :-)
>
> Have you had a good look around hwloc?
On Mar 22, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Bert Wesarg wrote:
> > Same question again :)
>
> I suspect, I can't propose API changes after that, right? ;-)
It would be good, yes. :-)
Have you had a good look around hwloc? I.e., do you have a feel for whether
you will be suggesting any more API changes?
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:29, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Brice Goglin wrote:
>> Are we doing a 1.0-rc1 soon ?
>>
>
> Same question again :)
I suspect, I can't propose API changes after that, right? ;-)
Bert
>
> Brice
>
Brice Goglin, le Wed 03 Mar 2010 11:56:42 +0100, a écrit :
> > However, what to show in the graphical output? Printing both indexes
> > will make the output very large.
>
> By the way, would it possible to print multiple lines in each objects?
Should be feasible without much hassle.
Samuel
Brice Goglin, le Wed 03 Mar 2010 09:56:42 +0100, a écrit :
> I am asking people here, some are confused by all these
> --logical/--physical outputs. One idea that came is to always keep the
> logical index and print the physical index as an attribute. Something like:
>
> $ lstopo -
>
Brice Goglin wrote:
>> What hasn't been finished yet and to my opinion needs to be for v1.0, is
>> the prefix/suffix/whatever to easily distinguish between physical and
>> logical numbers in lstopo.
>>
>
> I played with this today and arrived to these conclusions:
> * Having 'l' or 'p'
Brice Goglin, le Fri 26 Feb 2010 15:32:08 +0100, a écrit :
> * are there actually some important warnings to fix ?
In my memory there isn't.
What hasn't been finished yet and to my opinion needs to be for v1.0, is
the prefix/suffix/whatever to easily distinguish between physical and
logical
13 matches
Mail list logo