Paul --
You had a reason for doing this (get followed by set), but I confess
that I don't recall the details why. Do you remember?
On Dec 17, 2005, at 6:35 AM, Bogdan Costescu wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>> Hmm. Is there anything we can do about this? Should we just
>> document this behavior?
>
> The only way that I can see is to get rid of the _set to validate the
> length. This eliminates both the possibility of getting the wrong
> value after a change by an external entity and the possibility of
> asking for an inactive/inexistent CPU that would return -EINVAL.
>
> --
> Bogdan Costescu
>
> IWR - Interdisziplinaeres Zentrum fuer Wissenschaftliches Rechnen
> Universitaet Heidelberg, INF 368, D-69120 Heidelberg, GERMANY
> Telephone: +49 6221 54 8869, Telefax: +49 6221 54 8868
> E-mail: Bogdan.Costescu_at_[hidden]
>
> _______________________________________________
> plpa-users mailing list
> plpa-users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/plpa-users
--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} The Open MPI Project
{+} http://www.open-mpi.org/
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}