Tim,
i am not familiar with CUDA, but that might help
can you please
export nvml_enable=no
and then re-configure and rebuild Open MPI ?
i hope this will help you
Cheers,
Gilles
On 9/21/2017 3:04 PM, Tim Jim wrote:
Hello,
Apologies to bring up this old thread - I finally had a chance
Hello,
Apologies to bring up this old thread - I finally had a chance to try again
with openmpi but I am still have trouble getting it to run. I downloaded
version 3.0.0 hoping it would solve some of the problems but on running
mpicc for the previous test case, I am still getting an undefined refe
Hi!
The OB1 PML problem, how long has it been around and, apart from the
hang, how can i check if it is likely that i get hit by it?
And are there any specific situations when it does appear?
Will try 2.1.2 (and 3.0.0) out on our problem case soon but it takes a
couple of days for the hang we're
Stephen,
this is very likely related to the issue already reported in github.
meanwhile, you can apply the attached patch
patch configure < configure.diff
and then re-configure and make.
note this is a temporary workaround, it simply prevent the build of the
reachable/netlink component,
an
Thanks for the report,
is this related to https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/issues/4211 ?
there is a known issue when libnl-3 is installed but libnl-route-3 is not
Cheers,
Gilles
On 9/21/2017 8:53 AM, Stephen Guzik wrote:
When compiling (on Debian stretch), I see:
In file included from l
When compiling (on Debian stretch), I see:
In file included from libnl_utils.h:52:0,
from reachable_netlink_utils_common.c:48:
libnl1_utils.h:54:26: error: too few arguments to function ‘nl_geterror’
#define NL_GETERROR(err) nl_geterror()
^
libnl1_utils.
This discussion started getting into an interesting question: ABI
standardization for portability by language. It makes sense to have ABI
standardization for portability of objects across environments. At the same
time it does mean that everyone follows the exact same recipe for low level
implement
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Dave Love
wrote:
> Jeff Hammond writes:
>
> > Please separate C and C++ here. C has a standard ABI. C++ doesn't.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> [For some value of "standard".] I've said the same about C++, but the
> current GCC manual says its C++ ABI is "industry standard",
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet <
gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Jeff Hammond
> wrote:
>
> > Fortran is a legit problem, although if somebody builds a standalone
> Fortran
> > 2015 implementation of the MPI interface, it would be dec
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> Fortran is a legit problem, although if somebody builds a standalone Fortran
> 2015 implementation of the MPI interface, it would be decoupled from the MPI
> library compilation.
Is this even doable without making any assumptions ?
For exam
Jeff Hammond writes:
> Intel compilers support GOMP runtime interoperability, although I don't
> believe it is the default. You can use the Intel/LLVM OpenMP runtime with
> GCC such that all three OpenMP compilers work together.
For what it's worth, it's trivial to make a shim with a compatible
Jeff Hammond writes:
> Please separate C and C++ here. C has a standard ABI. C++ doesn't.
>
> Jeff
[For some value of "standard".] I've said the same about C++, but the
current GCC manual says its C++ ABI is "industry standard", and at least
Intel document compatibility with recent GCC on GNU/
12 matches
Mail list logo
