Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: Brian Barrett (brbarret_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-15 14:02:16


BTW, Here's the documentation I was referring to:

   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Versioning

Now, the problem Open MPI faces is that while our MPI interface
rarely changes (and almost never in a backwards-incompatible way),
the interface between components and libraries does. So that could
cause some interesting heartaches.

Good luck,

Brian

On Oct 15, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:

> Ok, having read the libtool docs now, I see why the release number is
> a bad idea. :-)
>
> I'm assuming that:
>
> - The libmpi interface will rarely change, but we may add to it over
> time (there's a specific point about this in the libtool docs -- no
> problem)
> - The libopen-rte interface historically has had major changes
> between major releases and may have interface changes between minor
> releases, too
> - The libopen-pal interface is relatively stable -- I actually
> haven't been checking how often it changes
>
> So if we do this, I think the RM's would need to be responsible for
> marshaling this information and setting the appropriate values. I
> can convert the build system to do use this kind of information; the
> real question is whether the community wants to utilize it or not
> (and whether the RM's will take on the responsibility of gathering
> this data for each release).
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Christian Bell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Brian Barrett wrote:
>>
>>> Nooooo! :)
>>>
>>> It would be good for everyone to read the Libtool documentation to
>>> see why versioning on the release number would be a really bad idea.
>>> Then comment. But my opinion would be that you should change based
>>> on interface changes, not based on release numbers.
>>
>> Yes, I second Brian. Notwithstanding what the popular vote is on MPI
>> ABI compatibility across MPI implementations, I think that
>> major/minor numbering within an implementation should be used to
>> indiciate when interfaces break, not give hints as to what release
>> they pertain to.
>>
>> . . christian
>>
>> --
>> christian.bell_at_[hidden]
>> (QLogic Host Solutions Group, formerly Pathscale)
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel