This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
On Jul 6, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Don Kerr wrote:
> Are there any guidelines about the use of opal_output_verbose?
Not so much.
> - Are there hidden meanings for a given verbose level? e.g. 0
> reserved for PML, or 50-100 for BTL and so on
Nope. The output was designed to use the values with >= kinds of
checking; i.e., the higher the verbose value the user gives, the more
output they see. I.e., the values are not used in a "bit flag" sense
(i.e., each bit enables/disables a specific set of output).
> - Maybe the base component output_id is ok to use in situation
> XYZ but a component specific output_id should be used in situation
> Or should never be used for component specific output?
I've typically used the base component output_id whenever possible.
I usually started off having an output ID for a specific component,
but usually that was for debugging (and therefore having oodles and
oodles of output). By the time I was done, I usually had only a few
output statements and therefore used the base ID.
I guess my suggestion would be: if you're going to have a LOT of
output, then make it a component-specific ID. If it's a "reasonable"
amount, then just use the base ID. Definitions of those terms are
subjective and intentionally fuzzy. :-)
> Why I ask. I want to report a warning to the user when "--enable-
> is not configured. I also do not want the error to show up all the
> only when for example --mca btl_base_debug is set to some value. I am
> thinking I will just use opal_output_verbose but wanted to see if
> were any guidelines about its use? Or if I should be thinking about
> other option all together.
You want a warning to show when:
1. the udapl btl is used
2. --enable-debug was not configured
3. the user specifies btl_*_verbose (or btl_*_debug) >= some_value
Is that right? If so, is the intent to warn that somen checks are
not being performed that one would otherwise assume are being
performed (because of #3)?