Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

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

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] The de-C99 of hwloc
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-17 17:44:51


On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:

> Minor comments:
> * do you really need to check if ptr != NULL before freeing ptr ? my
> free accepts NULL ptr

I do it because:

- it's just defensive programming
- I've seen some free() implementations output to stderr when free(NULL) is invoked

> * I would rather assert(0) when type is OBJ_TYPE_MAX in switches

Good call; I'll do that.

> * note that backporting to 1.1 would conflict in the distance stuff
> (some code was moved from src/topology.c to distance.c, and types were
> changed from unsigned to float)

Oy; ok.

> What's your plan now?

Need to have the other back ends de-C99'ed, too, but I don't have access to those kinds of machines, so I can't really do it. :-(

> Apply this to hwloc trunk, don't backport in hwloc
> 1.1, but backport to OMPI's copy of hwloc 1.1 to get some wide testing?

Trunk, yes -- after Samuel comments and we talk about how to do the other back ends.

Once we're done, I'll probably take a whack at back-porting to 1.1 (even if it's not a straight svn merge) because it certainly is nicer to have stock versions of hwloc in ompi rather than a hacked version.

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/