Then let's just be patient until OPAL_SOS make it in the trunk, and save us the burden of a large effort made twice.
george.
On Mar 5, 2010, at 22:35 , Ralph Castain wrote:
>
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:22 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>
>>>> I agree with Jeff's comments about the BTL_ERROR. How about a middle ground here? We let the BTLs use BTL_ERROR, eventually with some modifications, and we redirect the BTL_ERROR to a more advanced macro including support for orte_show_help? This will require going over all the BTLs, but on the bright side it will give us a 100% consistency on retorting errors.
>>>
>>> Sounds reasonable to me - I'm happy to help do it, assuming Jeff also concurs. I assume we would then replace all the show_help calls as well? Otherwise, I'm not sure what we gain as the direct orte_show_help dependency will remain. Or are those calls too specialized to be replaced with BTL_ERROR?
>>
>> Should this kind of thing wait for OPAL_SOS?
>>
>> (I mention this because the OPAL_SOS RFC will be sent to devel Real Soon Now...)
>
> Sure - OPAL_SOS will supersede all this anyway.
>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Squyres
>> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
>> For corporate legal information go to:
>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel mailing list
>> devel_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}