On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 12:54 PM, George Bosilca <bosilca_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> There seems to be an opportunity to still have heterogeneous environment in the future.
> How so?
As the link I sent highlight, there is a push, a reasonable effort, to
bring another processor family into mainstream. This open the
potential for the dawn of heterogeneous data centers, thus the need
for at least some basic support for heterogeneous environments.
>> I donât think it is fair to shift the burden on the original developer instead of the committer who broke a feature.
> I don't see how your comment is related to this RFC.
Because I have the feeling the logic behind the RFC is: it is broken
and must be removed because nobody wants to fix it. And I don't agree
with this logic. This particular code was working and was used but
incompetence and carelessness (in any arbitrary order) broke it.
> The code is unused. It has been unused for a long time. It is unlikely to be fixed.
I wrote a significant portion of the code pinpointed in this RFC, and
maintained it for a reasonable amount of time, despite a number of
careless commits. But today, you are right, I have no intention in
fixing it anymore, and I don't think anybody wants to volunteer for
such a chore.
PS: This code has implications from the datatype engine till up in the
MPI layer. It also impacts the BTL, especially the hand-shake for the
one requiring such a protocol. It also has an impact on the external32
support in MPI, for some types of architectures. So it's removal
should be an extremely cautious and chirurgical operation.
> Why not remove it?
> Jeff Squyres
> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
> devel mailing list
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/04/14595.php