[hwloc-devel] Create success (hwloc r1.1a1r2521)

2010-09-28 Thread MPI Team
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success. Snapshot: hwloc 1.1a1r2521 Start time: Tue Sep 28 21:01:02 EDT 2010 End time: Tue Sep 28 21:03:00 EDT 2010 Your friendly daemon, Cyrador

Re: [hwloc-devel] roadmap

2010-09-28 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Sep 28, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Brice Goglin wrote: > Jeff, can you check on your Mac that lstopo from 1.0 works with libhwloc > from the latest bitmap branch? I had to fake out the VERSION information, but after doing that, it works. So I think we're good. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com

Re: [hwloc-devel] roadmap

2010-09-28 Thread Brice Goglin
Le 28/09/2010 11:29, Samuel Thibault a écrit : > Brice Goglin, le Fri 24 Sep 2010 13:31:06 +0200, a écrit : > >> By the way, what's the proper way to do the latter? >> #pragma weak hwloc_cpuset_foo = hwloc_bitmap_foo ? >> use __hwloc_attribute_alias instead ? >> > There is no proper way

Re: [hwloc-devel] tarball growing

2010-09-28 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
Eh. Other than not liking it, is there a *problem* with the tarball getting larger? We could also make 2 tarballs if you really care - one with the tests and one without. Sent from my PDA. No type good. On Sep 28, 2010, at 2:28 AM, "Brice Goglin" wrote: > The bz2

Re: [hwloc-devel] roadmap

2010-09-28 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Fri 24 Sep 2010 13:31:06 +0200, a écrit : > By the way, what's the proper way to do the latter? > #pragma weak hwloc_cpuset_foo = hwloc_bitmap_foo ? > use __hwloc_attribute_alias instead ? There is no proper way unfortunately: the Mach-O format used by MacOS does not support such

Re: [hwloc-devel] tarball growing

2010-09-28 Thread Brice Goglin
Le 28/09/2010 10:26, Ashley Pittman a écrit : > On 28 Sep 2010, at 07:27, Brice Goglin wrote: > > >> The bz2 tarball of hwloc 1.0.2 was 2.1MB. hwloc 1.1 will be at least >> 2.7MB. I know that bandwidth is free, but I am still not confortable >> with the size increasing that much. >> >> Any

Re: [hwloc-devel] tarball growing

2010-09-28 Thread Ashley Pittman
On 28 Sep 2010, at 07:27, Brice Goglin wrote: > The bz2 tarball of hwloc 1.0.2 was 2.1MB. hwloc 1.1 will be at least > 2.7MB. I know that bandwidth is free, but I am still not confortable > with the size increasing that much. > > Any other idea? There is probably some mileage in simply

Re: [hwloc-devel] roadmap

2010-09-28 Thread Brice Goglin
The bitmap branch looks good to me. There might still be some documentation/comments to update, but nothing big. Given how intrusive this branch is, I'd rather merge it early instead of fixing conflicts in other branches for a long time :) What I need first is somebody to check my pragma at the

[hwloc-devel] tarball growing

2010-09-28 Thread Brice Goglin
The bz2 tarball of hwloc 1.0.2 was 2.1MB. hwloc 1.1 will be at least 2.7MB. I know that bandwidth is free, but I am still not confortable with the size increasing that much. Obviously, the problem comes from tarballs under tests/linux: 605774 28 sept. 08:12 tests/linux/256ppc-8n8s4t.tar.gz