On Mar 26, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> > Fair enough. How about still just keeping "P" in the graphic output, then? But "processor" in the prettyprint?
> IIRC, somebody said "PU" (for "processing unit") could be a good
> solution. Otherwise, I am ok with "Proc" or "Processor", with a small
> preference for the former.
I think I still am uncomfortable with "proc" because it's too much like "process". But that could be just me.
PU might be suitable.
> By the way, this is also what hwloc_type_string() would return. Unless
> we keep it unchanged and just hack lstopo to use its own stringified
> type name ?
I wouldn't mind the hack (too much), but it does seem a little inelegant. If we hate everything else, let's settle on "PU".
For corporate legal information go to: