Re: [OMPI users] 1.4 OpenMPI build not working well with TotalView on Darwin

2010-01-22 Thread Ashley Pittman 
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 21:18 -0500, Peter Thompson wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Sorry, speaking in shorthand again.
> 
> Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Peter Thompson wrote:
> > 
> >> I've tried a few builds of 1.4 on Snow Leopard, and trying to start up 
> >> TotalView
> >> gets some of the more 'standard' problems.  
> > 
> > I don't quite know what you mean by "standard" problems...?
> 
> That's more or less 'standard problems' that I hear described when someone 
> tries 
> to build and MPI (not just OpenMPI) and things don't work on first try.  I 
> don't 
> know if you've worked on the interface directly, but you are probably aware 
> that 
> TotalView has an API where we set up a structure, MPIR_PROCTABLE, based on a 
> typedef MPIR_PROCDESC, which gets filled in as to what processes are started 
> up 
> on which nodes.  Which allows the debugger to attach to things automatically. 
> If the build is done so that the files that hold these structures are 
> optimized, 
> sometimes the typedef is optimized away.  Or in the case of other builds, the 
> file may have the correct optimization (none) but the symbol info is stripped 
> in 
> the link phase.  So it's a typical, or 'standard' issue I face, but hopefully 
> not for you.

I've seen several OpenMPI installs in the wild like this where the type
information for MPIR_PROCTABLE is missing.  The fact the type
information is missing however doesn't affect the code or contents of
memory at all, just that it's not described by debug information.  As
there is a standard (sort of) to describe MPIR_PROCTABLE what I choose
to do in padb is to use the standard to calculate the struct size and
offsets rather than the debug info.  This allows padb to work even when
the debug information is missing.

If the debug information is available that it matches what I expect it
to be.

Don't use the debug info but rather use fixed sizes and offsets:
http://code.google.com/p/padb/source/detail?r=355

Verify the type information if present:
http://code.google.com/p/padb/source/detail?r=386

> However, 
> some users prefer the classic launch with -tv, and this seems to be failing 
> with 
> the latest builds I've done on Darwin.

I've seen this 'problem' on Linux as well.  I'm unsure of the OpenMPI
version although I could ask the organisation concerned if required.

Ashley,

-- 

Ashley Pittman, Bath, UK.

Padb - A parallel job inspection tool for cluster computing
http://padb.pittman.org.uk

Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

2010-01-22 Thread Shiqing Fan 


Yes, that should work but only with newer version of flex, I didn't 
think about it before. But the windows flex.exe should still be 
available for svn checkout build.



Thanks,
Shiqing


Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:


What prevents us from generating the code during make dist time and 
therefore not shipping flex.exe?


-jms
Sent from my PDA.  No type good.

- Original Message -
From: Shiqing Fan 
To: Open MPI Users 
Cc: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
Sent: Fri Jan 22 03:56:52 2010
Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

Hi,

No, that's not true, we did ship the flex-generated code a time ago, but
as that part of code changes sometimes, we decided to generate it during
compilation time, and the flex.exe came with the first support of
Windows (CMake).


Regards,
Shiqing

Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Don't we ship the flex-generated code in the tarball anyway?  If so, 
why do we ship flex.exe?

>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>
>  
>> I have to agree with the two requests here. Having either a windows 
tarball or a windows build tools tarball doesn't seem too burdensom, 
and could even be done automatically at make dist time.

>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org 
>> To: us...@open-mpi.org 
>> Sent: Thu Jan 21 10:05:03 2010
>> Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe
>>
>> Am Donnerstag, den 21.01.2010, 11:52 -0500 schrieb Michael Di Domenico:
>>
>>> openmpi-1.4.1/contrib/platform/win32/bin/flex.exe

>>>
>>> I understand this file might be required for building on windows,
>>> since I'm not I can just delete the file without issue.
>>>
>>> However, for those of us under import restrictions, where binaries are
>>> not allowed in, this file causes me to open the tarball and delete the
>>> file (not a big deal, i know, i know).
>>>
>>> But, can I put up a vote for a pure source only tree?
>>>  
>> I'm very much in favor of that since we can't ship this binary in
>> Debian. We'd have to delete it from the tarball and repack it with 
every

>> release which is quite cumbersome. If these tools could be shipped in a
>> separate tarball that would be great!
>>
>> Best regards
>> Manuel
>>
>> ___
>> users mailing list
>> us...@open-mpi.org
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>
>>
>> ___
>> users mailing list
>> us...@open-mpi.org
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>
>>
>

>
>  



--
--
Shiqing Fan  http://www.hlrs.de/people/fan
High Performance Computing   Tel.: +49 711 685 87234
  Center Stuttgart (HLRS)Fax.: +49 711 685 65832
Address:Allmandring 30   email: f...@hlrs.de   
70569 Stuttgart





--
--
Shiqing Fan  http://www.hlrs.de/people/fan
High Performance Computing   Tel.: +49 711 685 87234
 Center Stuttgart (HLRS)Fax.: +49 711 685 65832
Address:Allmandring 30   email: f...@hlrs.de
70569 Stuttgart

Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

2010-01-22 Thread Andreas Schäfer 
On 11:09 Fri 22 Jan , Shiqing Fan wrote:
> flex.exe is not generated at compile time, but flex.exe has to be used 
> to generate those *flex*.c files during compilation, like 
> show_help_lex.c (a.k.a the flex-generated code).

If flex.exe is needed only on Windows during compilation time, would
it be an option to only ship the source necessary to build the
flex.exe? One could then add an additional build stage during which
flex.exe is compiled, just before it is required.

Just my $0.02
-Andreas


-- 
==
Andreas Schäfer
HPC and Gridcomputing Working Group
Chair of Computer Science 3
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
+49 9131 85-27910
PGP/GPG key via keyserver
I'm a bright... http://www.the-brights.net
==

(\___/)
(+'.'+)
(")_(")
This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your 
signature to help him gain world domination!


pgpe7n4dKAUPR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

2010-01-22 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) 
What prevents us from generating the code during make dist time and therefore 
not shipping flex.exe?

-jms
Sent from my PDA.  No type good.

- Original Message -
From: Shiqing Fan 
To: Open MPI Users 
Cc: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
Sent: Fri Jan 22 03:56:52 2010
Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

Hi,

No, that's not true, we did ship the flex-generated code a time ago, but 
as that part of code changes sometimes, we decided to generate it during 
compilation time, and the flex.exe came with the first support of 
Windows (CMake).


Regards,
Shiqing

Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Don't we ship the flex-generated code in the tarball anyway?  If so, why do 
> we ship flex.exe?
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>
>   
>> I have to agree with the two requests here. Having either a windows tarball 
>> or a windows build tools tarball doesn't seem too burdensom, and could even 
>> be done automatically at make dist time.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org 
>> To: us...@open-mpi.org 
>> Sent: Thu Jan 21 10:05:03 2010
>> Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe
>>
>> Am Donnerstag, den 21.01.2010, 11:52 -0500 schrieb Michael Di Domenico:
>> 
>>> openmpi-1.4.1/contrib/platform/win32/bin/flex.exe
>>>
>>> I understand this file might be required for building on windows,
>>> since I'm not I can just delete the file without issue.
>>>
>>> However, for those of us under import restrictions, where binaries are
>>> not allowed in, this file causes me to open the tarball and delete the
>>> file (not a big deal, i know, i know).
>>>
>>> But, can I put up a vote for a pure source only tree?
>>>   
>> I'm very much in favor of that since we can't ship this binary in
>> Debian. We'd have to delete it from the tarball and repack it with every
>> release which is quite cumbersome. If these tools could be shipped in a
>> separate tarball that would be great!
>>
>> Best regards
>> Manuel
>>
>> ___
>> users mailing list
>> us...@open-mpi.org
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>
>>
>> ___
>> users mailing list
>> us...@open-mpi.org
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>
>> 
>
>
>   


-- 
--
Shiqing Fan  http://www.hlrs.de/people/fan
High Performance Computing   Tel.: +49 711 685 87234
  Center Stuttgart (HLRS)Fax.: +49 711 685 65832
Address:Allmandring 30   email: f...@hlrs.de
70569 Stuttgart

Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

2010-01-22 Thread Shiqing Fan 


Hi,

flex.exe is not generated at compile time, but flex.exe has to be used 
to generate those *flex*.c files during compilation, like 
show_help_lex.c (a.k.a the flex-generated code).


The windows binary of flex on sourceforge doesn't fit the requirement of 
Open MPI, it has some missing features. That's why we have to compile a 
new flex.exe for Windows, and put it in the source tree.



Regards,
Shiqing


Ralph Castain wrote:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if it is generated at -compile- time, then how 
did it get in the 1.4.1 tarball?


On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Shiqing Fan wrote:

  

Hi,

No, that's not true, we did ship the flex-generated code a time ago, but as 
that part of code changes sometimes, we decided to generate it during 
compilation time, and the flex.exe came with the first support of Windows 
(CMake).


Regards,
Shiqing

Jeff Squyres wrote:


Don't we ship the flex-generated code in the tarball anyway?  If so, why do we 
ship flex.exe?

On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:

 
  

I have to agree with the two requests here. Having either a windows tarball or 
a windows build tools tarball doesn't seem too burdensom, and could even be 
done automatically at make dist time.

Brian


- Original Message -
From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org 
To: us...@open-mpi.org 
Sent: Thu Jan 21 10:05:03 2010
Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

Am Donnerstag, den 21.01.2010, 11:52 -0500 schrieb Michael Di Domenico:
   


openmpi-1.4.1/contrib/platform/win32/bin/flex.exe

I understand this file might be required for building on windows,
since I'm not I can just delete the file without issue.

However, for those of us under import restrictions, where binaries are
not allowed in, this file causes me to open the tarball and delete the
file (not a big deal, i know, i know).

But, can I put up a vote for a pure source only tree?
 
  

I'm very much in favor of that since we can't ship this binary in
Debian. We'd have to delete it from the tarball and repack it with every
release which is quite cumbersome. If these tools could be shipped in a
separate tarball that would be great!

Best regards
Manuel

___
users mailing list
us...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users


___
users mailing list
us...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users

   

 
  

--
--
Shiqing Fan  http://www.hlrs.de/people/fan
High Performance Computing   Tel.: +49 711 685 87234
Center Stuttgart (HLRS)Fax.: +49 711 685 65832
Address:Allmandring 30   email: f...@hlrs.de70569 Stuttgart

___
users mailing list
us...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users



  



--
--
Shiqing Fan  http://www.hlrs.de/people/fan
High Performance Computing   Tel.: +49 711 685 87234
 Center Stuttgart (HLRS)Fax.: +49 711 685 65832
Address:Allmandring 30   email: f...@hlrs.de
70569 Stuttgart

Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

2010-01-22 Thread Ralph Castain 
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if it is generated at -compile- time, then how 
did it get in the 1.4.1 tarball?


On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Shiqing Fan wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> No, that's not true, we did ship the flex-generated code a time ago, but as 
> that part of code changes sometimes, we decided to generate it during 
> compilation time, and the flex.exe came with the first support of Windows 
> (CMake).
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Shiqing
> 
> Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> Don't we ship the flex-generated code in the tarball anyway?  If so, why do 
>> we ship flex.exe?
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> I have to agree with the two requests here. Having either a windows tarball 
>>> or a windows build tools tarball doesn't seem too burdensom, and could even 
>>> be done automatically at make dist time.
>>> 
>>> Brian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org 
>>> To: us...@open-mpi.org 
>>> Sent: Thu Jan 21 10:05:03 2010
>>> Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe
>>> 
>>> Am Donnerstag, den 21.01.2010, 11:52 -0500 schrieb Michael Di Domenico:
>>>
 openmpi-1.4.1/contrib/platform/win32/bin/flex.exe
 
 I understand this file might be required for building on windows,
 since I'm not I can just delete the file without issue.
 
 However, for those of us under import restrictions, where binaries are
 not allowed in, this file causes me to open the tarball and delete the
 file (not a big deal, i know, i know).
 
 But, can I put up a vote for a pure source only tree?
  
>>> I'm very much in favor of that since we can't ship this binary in
>>> Debian. We'd have to delete it from the tarball and repack it with every
>>> release which is quite cumbersome. If these tools could be shipped in a
>>> separate tarball that would be great!
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> Manuel
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> users mailing list
>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> users mailing list
>>> us...@open-mpi.org
>>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
>>> 
>>>
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Shiqing Fan  http://www.hlrs.de/people/fan
> High Performance Computing   Tel.: +49 711 685 87234
> Center Stuttgart (HLRS)Fax.: +49 711 685 65832
> Address:Allmandring 30   email: f...@hlrs.de70569 Stuttgart
> 
> ___
> users mailing list
> us...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users

Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

2010-01-22 Thread Shiqing Fan 

Hi,

No, that's not true, we did ship the flex-generated code a time ago, but 
as that part of code changes sometimes, we decided to generate it during 
compilation time, and the flex.exe came with the first support of 
Windows (CMake).



Regards,
Shiqing

Jeff Squyres wrote:

Don't we ship the flex-generated code in the tarball anyway?  If so, why do we 
ship flex.exe?

On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:

  

I have to agree with the two requests here. Having either a windows tarball or 
a windows build tools tarball doesn't seem too burdensom, and could even be 
done automatically at make dist time.

Brian


- Original Message -
From: users-boun...@open-mpi.org 
To: us...@open-mpi.org 
Sent: Thu Jan 21 10:05:03 2010
Subject: Re: [OMPI users] flex.exe

Am Donnerstag, den 21.01.2010, 11:52 -0500 schrieb Michael Di Domenico:


openmpi-1.4.1/contrib/platform/win32/bin/flex.exe

I understand this file might be required for building on windows,
since I'm not I can just delete the file without issue.

However, for those of us under import restrictions, where binaries are
not allowed in, this file causes me to open the tarball and delete the
file (not a big deal, i know, i know).

But, can I put up a vote for a pure source only tree?
  

I'm very much in favor of that since we can't ship this binary in
Debian. We'd have to delete it from the tarball and repack it with every
release which is quite cumbersome. If these tools could be shipped in a
separate tarball that would be great!

Best regards
Manuel

___
users mailing list
us...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users


___
users mailing list
us...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users





  



--
--
Shiqing Fan  http://www.hlrs.de/people/fan
High Performance Computing   Tel.: +49 711 685 87234
 Center Stuttgart (HLRS)Fax.: +49 711 685 65832
Address:Allmandring 30   email: f...@hlrs.de
70569 Stuttgart