Re: [PATCH] Fix num_processors_ignoring_omp.

On 6/18/19 10:58 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > I prefer canonical URLs to short URLs. > > By "canonical" I mean: > > - When you are on a monthly overview of the /r/ domain and follow > a "Prev Period" or "Next Period" link, you get into the /archive/html/ > domain. > Similarly, when you

Re: [PATCH] Fix num_processors_ignoring_omp.

Bernhard Voelker wrote: > Just a tiny reminder: > the server on 'lists.gnu.org' has a redirection to get shorter URLs. I prefer canonical URLs to short URLs. By "canonical" I mean: - When you are on a monthly overview of the /r/ domain and follow a "Prev Period" or "Next Period" link, you

Re: [PATCH] Fix num_processors_ignoring_omp.

On 6/10/19 10:18 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > 2019-06-10 Bruno Haible > > nproc: Ensure nproc(NPROC_ALL) ≥ nproc(NPROC_CURRENT) with glibc ≥ 2.26. > Reported by Nikita Ermakov in > . s/archive\/html/r/ Just a

Re: [PATCH] Fix num_processors_ignoring_omp.

Hi Nikita, > From: Nikita Ermakov > > - Update comments to correspond closed glibc bug #21542. > > - In case of failed _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF use the maximum between > nprocs_current and nprocs to meet the requirements of > num_processors (NPROC_ALL) >= num_processors (NPROC_CURRENT). Thanks

[PATCH] Fix num_processors_ignoring_omp.

From: Nikita Ermakov - Update comments to correspond closed glibc bug #21542. - In case of failed _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF use the maximum between nprocs_current and nprocs to meet the requirements of num_processors (NPROC_ALL) >= num_processors (NPROC_CURRENT). --- lib/nproc.c | 22 +++

[PATCH] Fix num_processors_ignoring_omp.

- Update comments to correspond closed glibc bug #21542. - In case of failed _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF use the maximum between nprocs_current and nprocs to meet the requirements of num_processors (NPROC_ALL) >= num_processors (NPROC_CURRENT). --- lib/nproc.c | 22 +++--- 1 file cha