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: 2013-10-28 14:22:03


I'm not sure what we gain by having them. It's a new (to us) product;
let's not support legacy names.

Brian

On 10/28/13 11:40 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>Ah -- my mistake in the original post: I now see that it installs *both*
>shmemcc and oshcc (and friends). I didn't notice the osh* versions in my
>initial post.
>
>The question still remains, though -- do we still want these names
>installed:
>
>-----
>$ cd $prefix/bin
>$ ls -1 shmem*
>shmemcc@
>shmemfort@
>shmemrun@
>-----
>
>
>On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Mike Dubman <miked_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Brian,
>> The code in trunk already generates:
>>
>> oshcc oshfort oshmem_info oshrun
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Barrett, Brian W <bwbarre_at_[hidden]>
>>wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

--
  Brian W. Barrett
  Scalable System Software Group
  Sandia National Laboratories