Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Hardware Locality Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] dynamic cpuset_t?
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-25 16:02:15


Sorry for not replying earlier.

If we anticipate changing the fixed-size items now, how about adding
some kind of version control in the type name now? Or -- more
specifically -- what are the exact ABI goals? I.e., if we change the
size of the type, will we just require a recompile? Or will we want
to support old binaries and new binaries simultaneously?

On Sep 25, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Just to give my personal opinion: having another ABI shouldn't hurt
> if we put the cpuset size in the soname for instance. In comparison,
> having to use functions that allocate/free cpusets like I've done for
> the AIX and OSF is a bit tedious (those don't have the choice, they
> have
> to preserve a stable ABI).
>
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> hwloc-devel mailing list
> hwloc-devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel
>

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]