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 Jun 8, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> What does "disabling threads" mean?
I was specifically referring to --disable-opal-multi-threads and --disable-mpi-thread-multiple (couldn't remember the names of the options when I typed this up).
One thing I just noticed -- these warnings only applied to the C++ compiler. Everything appeared to be fine for the C compiler. Hmm.
> E.g., does it mean disabling single
> receive queues? Sorry for asking bonehead questions, but I thought
> these atomics weren't just needed for multithreading usage, but for
> managing interactions of multiple (even single-threaded) processes in
> shared memory.
Oy. That sounds right... ouch.
George -- can you confirm? (I only have a hazy understanding of the issue) Is this problem that at least some of the atomics are not supported, and therefore the sm btl is borked?
The compiler warnings that I cited at the beginning of this thread can be seen here:
Given that these only appear with the C++ compiler, I wonder if we should just disable the C++ bindings and VT...?
Additionally, all the stuff I sent to George was for the C compiler -- George -- did those show problems, too? Or should I send the assembly from the C++ compiler, too?
For corporate legal information go to: