"Barrett, Brian via users" writes:
> Well, if you’re trying to get Open MPI running on a platform for which
> we don’t have atomics support, built-in atomics solves a problem for
> you…
That's not an issue in this case, I think. (I'd expect it to default to
intrinsic if extrinsic support is mis
Nathan Hjelm writes:
> So far only cons. The gcc and sync builtin atomic provide slower
> performance on x86-64 (and possible other platforms). I plan to
> investigate this as part of the investigation into requiring C11
> atomics from the C compiler.
Thanks. Is that a gcc deficiency, or do the
Well, if you’re trying to get Open MPI running on a platform for which we don’t
have atomics support, built-in atomics solves a problem for you…
Brian
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>
> So far only cons. The gcc and sync builtin atomic provide slower performance
> on x86-64
So far only cons. The gcc and sync builtin atomic provide slower performance on
x86-64 (and possible other platforms). I plan to investigate this as part of
the investigation into requiring C11 atomics from the C compiler.
-Nathan
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Dave Love wrote:
>
> What are
What are the pros and cons of configuring with --enable-builtin-atomics?
I haven't spotted any discussion of the option.
___
users mailing list
users@lists.open-mpi.org
https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
