On 25/04/2012 16:55, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> 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...
FWIW, the plugin question may come back within a couple month because
we'll have an intern looking at managing all backends better inside the