On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> FWIW: Having lstopo plugins for output would obviate the need for having two executable names.
>
> Well, it seems overkill to me. It makes sense to me to have both
> xlstopo and lstopo.
Ick. FWIW, I dislike having two executables. I like having one executable that can adapt itself to whatever is loaded / available on the system. :-)
But if I'm in the minority, no problem...
If I'm not, I can work on a patch to see if it would be horribly disruptive...
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}