[mpich-discuss] Porting MPICH

[Pavan Balaji]

Thanks.  Yes, they can be mostly no-ops (except TLS checks which can be
any static variable since there's only one thread by definition).
Implementing them as "not-implemented" aborts might be OK too.

 -- Pavan

On 05/19/2013 02:43 PM US Central Time, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> Presumably those functions can be noops if no threads are going to be
> used.  Am I wrong?
> 
> It might be worth implementing those functions as stubs that abort
> with UNIMPL error and see how far that goes.  I'll try to get to this
> later today.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Pavan Balaji <balaji at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/19/2013 02:28 PM US Central Time, jhonatan alves wrote:
>>> But i believe that the missing of POSIX
>>> threads can be the most trouble part. So we need to port to the thread
>>> implementation in EPOS.
>>
>> Yup, I too believe that'll be the blocker.  MPICH supports multiple
>> threading packages, but currently requires at least one to function
>> correctly:
>>
>> https://trac.mpich.org/projects/mpich/ticket/231
>>
>> It's been a while since I looked into this issue, but I could look into
>> it if you are running into it for your platform.
>>
>>  -- Pavan
>>
>> --
>> Pavan Balaji
>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji