On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>> BTL). It's not that I don't care about IPv6, it's just that I care
>> more about multi TCP BTL working in the way it is supposed to work.
> There'd be less trouble if we all had automatic testing, so nobody
> breaks stuff somebody else relies on.
We actually do -- I'm guessing no one has spoken to you about
MTT...? (The MPI Testing Tool) Read the users's section to see how
to get started:
> See, you have committed something that made my internal tests turn
> If I just had an URL indicating when *I* break something *you* rely
We run 10's of thousands of tests a night:
Username: ompi, password: mtt (will be open someday, just not today)
The results are also mailed out every morning (here's the schedule):
However, I didn't see any failures from UTK regarding TCP. Bill and
I have both been traveling over the past 1.5 weeks, so it's possible
that we missed some failures, but I don't recall any...?
>> PS: Please read the commit log for the r14544. It explain why I
>> changed from sockaddr_storage* to sockaddr*.
> It doesn't:
>> Second, the IPv6 RFC suggest to use sockaddr_storage as a holder
>> for the IP information, but use a sockaddr* when we pass it to
> I don't understand the second part: "but use a sockaddr*". Why?
> Does r14550 satisfies your needs?
George: can you reply?