How's this, instead? I made a few minor changes:
- prefixed each line of the legend (the "physical IDs" line was confusing to me
without a prefix)
- fixed logic for terminating timestamp string
- moved all the legend logic inside "if (legend)"
On Nov 29, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 30 Nov 2010 14:45:13 +0100, a écrit :
> How's this, instead? I made a few minor changes:
>
> - prefixed each line of the legend (the "physical IDs" line was confusing to
> me without a prefix)
> - fixed logic for terminating timestamp string
> - moved all the legend logic
On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> How's this, instead? I made a few minor changes:
>>
>> - prefixed each line of the legend (the "physical IDs" line was confusing to
>> me without a prefix)
>> - fixed logic for terminating timestamp string
>> - moved all the legend logic
Le 30/11/2010 15:03, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
>
>>> How's this, instead? I made a few minor changes:
>>>
>>> - prefixed each line of the legend (the "physical IDs" line was confusing
>>> to me without a prefix)
>>> - fixed logic for
On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> I discussed with some "random" people about the "p" prefix in physical
> mode. It's not clear whether removing it from the graphical output is a
> good idea or not. People already have a hard time trying to understand
> all this logical/physical
Le 30/11/2010 15:20, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
>
>
>> I discussed with some "random" people about the "p" prefix in physical
>> mode. It's not clear whether removing it from the graphical output is a
>> good idea or not. People already have a hard
On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Yes, adding "p" to "#2" when showing physical indexes in the graphical
> output exactly like we do for the textual output (which does not have
> the legend).
Ah, I see.
> Some colleague even want to always have "P#" or "L#" and the legend to
>
Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for hwloc?
I'm thinking specifically for perl (because that's my scripting language of
choice), but I could probably be convinced to look at python as well.
(this would be for 1.2 at the earliest -- definitely not for 1.1)
--
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 30 Nov 2010 17:29:15 +0100, a écrit :
> Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for hwloc?
I'd say it's welcome, as it'd easily bring bindings for other languages
as well. I'm unsure how our pointers in the hwloc_obj_t structure will
nicely map,
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for hwloc?
>
> I'd say it's welcome, as it'd easily bring bindings for other languages
> as well. I'm unsure how our pointers in the hwloc_obj_t structure will
> nicely
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Guy Streeter wrote:
>> Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for
>> hwloc? I'm thinking specifically for perl (because that's my scripting
>> language of choice), but I could probably be convinced to look at python as
>> well.
>
>
Guy Streeter, le Tue 30 Nov 2010 17:48:56 +0100, a écrit :
> On 11/30/2010 10:07 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> >Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for
> >hwloc? I'm thinking specifically for perl (because that's my scripting
> >language of choice), but I could
On 11/30/2010 10:52 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Guy Streeter wrote:
Would anyone object if I take a whack at making some SWIG bindings for hwloc?
I'm thinking specifically for perl (because that's my scripting language of
choice), but I could probably be convinced
On Nov 30, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Guy Streeter wrote:
> I am doing this manually. I think SWIG works fine for simple interfaces, but
> this is pretty complicated.
You might be right. This was simply an excuse for me to explore SWIG; I have
no prior experience with it. :-)
--
Jeff Squyres
bgog...@osl.iu.edu, le Tue 30 Nov 2010 18:22:29 +0100, a écrit :
> 1) NO_PCI shows nothing
>
> And I wonder if we should make (1) the default for "backward compatibility".
Possibly, yes.
(but probably not in lstopo)
Samuel
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.1rc4r2871
Start time: Tue Nov 30 21:03:14 EST 2010
End time: Tue Nov 30 21:05:23 EST 2010
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
16 matches
Mail list logo
