Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-26 Thread Jeff Squyres
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-26 Thread Brice Goglin
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-26 Thread Jeff Squyres
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-25 Thread Brice Goglin
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 >

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-22 Thread Bert Wesarg
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?  

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-22 Thread Jeff Squyres
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?

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-22 Thread Bert Wesarg
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 >

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-03 Thread Samuel Thibault
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 - >

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-03-03 Thread Brice Goglin
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'

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-02-26 Thread Samuel Thibault
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

Re: [hwloc-devel] 1.0-rc1

2010-02-26 Thread Jeff Squyres
I fixed up the embedding code and docs; it's looking in good shape. I see this in topology-linux.c:1335: unsigned long processor = -1; Which seems to be a contradiction in terms. :-) There's a similar warning on 1426. On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > Are we doing a