Thank you, George!
Sorry that I sent my message too quick, and didn't even write that the
bug report was from MPICH (although the link was to MPICH).
Anyway, glad to know that it helped.
So, for the time being (OMPI 1.8.4 and 1.6.5) is it safer to stick to
MPI_Type_Vector,
instead of venturing
Gus,
Thanks for the pointer to the subarray and darray bug in MPICH. It turns out
that Open MPI has a similar issue. I guess we both followed the MPI standard
literally, and the standard specifically mention the LB and UB marker in the
construction of these two types. I pushed a fix for Open MP
Dear all, Dear Gus, Dear George,
have you seen my example program? (in the attachment)
As you suggested I have tried to *think **recursively about the datatypes*
but there is something wrong that I am not bale to understand, what do you
think?
thanks a lot
Diego
On 16 January 2015 at 23:23, Gu
Hi George
Many thanks for your answer and interest in my questions.
... so ... more questions inline ...
On 01/16/2015 03:41 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
Gus,
Please see my answers inline.
On Jan 16, 2015, at 14:24 , Gus Correa wrote:
Hi George
It is still not clear to me how to deal with st
Gus,
Please see my answers inline.
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 14:24 , Gus Correa wrote:
>
> Hi George
>
> It is still not clear to me how to deal with strides in
> MPI_Create_type_subarray.
> The function/subroutine interface doesn’t mention strides at all.
That’s indeed a little tricky. However,
Hi George
It is still not clear to me how to deal with strides in
MPI_Create_type_subarray.
The function/subroutine interface doesn't mention strides at all.
It is a pity that there is little literature (books) about MPI,
and the existing books are lagging behind the new MPI developments and
