Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

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.

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Remove non-standard MPI_MAX_NAME_LEN constant
From: George Bosilca (bosilca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-15 09:49:11


Indeed MPI_MAX_PORT_NAME is the right constant. A quick check indicate we're using the right one, so feel free to remove this little piece of historic LAM heritage.

  george.

On Jun 15, 2012, at 00:00 , Jeff Squyres wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>> I believe we use that constant in several places to define a static array size - you might check to be safe.
>
> I can't find it used anywhere in the code base other than mpi.h.in.
>
> It's a non-standard name (i.e., it's not in the MPI spec). I believe the standard name is MPI_MAX_PORT_NAME (which is OPAL_MAX_PORT_NAME).
>
>
>> On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>
>>> WHAT: Remove non-standard MPI_MAX_NAME_LEN from mpi.h.
>>>
>>> WHY: It looks like this was a carryover from LAM/MPI, but it's not in any MPI spec.
>>>
>>> WHERE: mpi.h
>>>
>>> TIMEOUT: This seems non-controversial, so I'll set the timeout to the teleconf next Tuesday: June 19, 2012
>>>
>>> ------
>>>
>>> More details:
>>>
>>> MPI_MAX_NAME_LEN is in mpi.h, but *not* in mpif.h, nor the C++ bindings. It looks like this is some kind of hold over from LAM/MPI, per the comment in mpi.h:
>>>
>>> #define MPI_MAX_NAME_LEN MPI_MAX_PORT_NAME /* max port name length, non-std. (LAM < 6.3b1) */
>>>
>>> This really should be removed to avoid confusion.
>>>
>>> If there's any discussion needed, I'm happy to push back the timeout -- I'm just assuming that there won't need to be any.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>
>
> --
> 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