Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] [EXTERNAL] Re: shmem vs. oshmem
From: Barrett, Brian W (bwbarre_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-25 18:13:34


i thought I mentioned this before, but the compilers should be oshcc, oshCC, and oshfort, with the starter named oshrun, according to Appendix C of the spec. Brian -- Brian W. Barrett Scalable System Software Group Sandia National Laboratories ________________________________________ From: devel [devel-bounces_at_[hidden]] on behalf of Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) [jsquyres_at_[hidden]] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:32 PM To: Open MPI Developers Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [OMPI devel] shmem vs. oshmem On Oct 25, 2013, at 12:58 PM, Igor Ivanov <Igor.Ivanov_at_[hidden]> wrote: >> - shmemcc / shmemfort / shmem_info / shmemrun >> --> should these all be "oshmem*" ? >> >> - the examples are hello_shmem* and ring_shmem* >> --> should these all be "*_oshmem*" ? > These examples are not OpenSHMEM specific. >> >> - there are header files named shmem* >> --> I'm guessing the names "shmem.h" and "shmem.fh" are mandated > OpenSHMEM specification says So ya, those names are standardized -- no problem. But shouldn't we be branding everything else as oshmem? Even if the examples are not oshmem-specific. We're shipping oshmem, not shmem, so why not call them oshmem examples [that also happen to be shmem examples] -- rather than shmem examples [that also happen to be oshmem examples]? -- 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