Quick question, George - are you planning on leaving that arch computation in OPAL, but just moving it to the new opal/datatype area? If so, then I won't worry about removing the arch-related calls from ORTE right away.
If you are planning on moving it back to OMPI, then I'll put my efforts at a higher priority.
Please feel free to do so, George, as far as I'm concerned. I will modify the ORTE code in anticipation of it by removing the arch-related calls. Should have that for you later today or tomorrow.
If it doesn't move, no harm done - like I said, I really don't need it any more, but was suggesting the move only to finally clear that abstraction break we all hated when I originally did it (apologies in hindsight). :-)
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:45 AM, George Bosilca <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:The datatype engine (where the arch code was originally from), needs a way to describe the architectures in order to know how to convert the data. Therefore I will advocate the return of the opal/util/arch.h back in the datatype.
On Jun 2, 2009, at 07:24 , Rainer Keller wrote:
no, that's not an issue. The comment is correct: For any Fortran integer*kind
we need to have _some_ C-representation as well, otherwise we disregard the
type (tm), see e.g. the old and resolved ticket #1094.
The representation chosen is set in opal/util/arch.c and is conclusive as far
as I can tell...
We do however still have a buglet with FCFLAGS='-i8 -r16', but that's with our
internal storage of [cdw]_f_to_c_index, so it's a different issue (ticket
PS: I especially like the comment in opal/util/arch.c ;-):
/* sizeof fortran logical
* RHC: technically, use of the ompi_ prefix is
* an abstraction violation. However, this is actually
* an error in our configure scripts that transcends
* all the data types and eventually should be fixed.
* The guilty part is f77_check.m4. Fixing it right
* now is beyond a reasonable scope - this comment is
* placed here to explain the abstraction break and
* indicate that it will eventually be fixed
On Tuesday 02 June 2009 09:57:46 am Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Rainer Keller wrote:
Rainer -- is it safe for Ralph to move the arch.c stuff back up into
OMPI, or will that conflict with your stuff?
Yes, we use it.
Please leave it at the OPAL layer. We need a way to describe and
remote architecture at the OPAL layer.
Question about the fortran stuff in opal/util/arch.c...
I see the following comment:
** The fortran integer is dismissed here, since there is no
** platform known to me, were fortran and C-integer do not match
You can tell the intel compiler (and maybe others?) to compile fortran
with double-sized integers and reals. Are we disregarding this?
I.e., does this make this portion of the datatype heterogeneity
Rainer Keller, PhD Tel: +1 (865) 241-6293
Oak Ridge National Lab Fax: +1 (865) 241-4811
PO Box 2008 MS 6164 Email: email@example.com
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-2008 AIM/Skype: rusraink
devel mailing list
devel mailing list