parallel-netcdf 0.9.4 released

[Jianwei Li]

On Thu, 22 Jul, 2004 at 17:55:36 -0500, Robert Latham wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 03:33:08PM +0200, Joachim Worringen wrote:
>> Problems I found (on SX-6):
>> - configure probing for the sizeof(MPI_Offset): linking is done with $CC
>> instead of $MPICC. This does not work on SX (don't ask me why; I know it
>> should as no MPI function is referenced). This works alright on IA32.Anyway,
>> in configure.in, line 245, it should read:
>> if $MPICC -c conftest.c && $MPICC -o conftest conftest.o ; then
>
>Ok, that change makes sense.  Jianwei, is there a platform (maybe the
>IBM? ) where we should use CC instead of MPICC to link?

	Yes. It should be both $MPICC. As I commented in the configure.in
	script, I used $CC for the linker just to solve the problem that
	some IBM SP requires POE to submit MPI executables instead of
	running the executables directly.

	Actually, putting both as $MPICC works for me on SDSC's IBM SP,
	except some ugly job-submitting message when the test program
	is run.

	OK. Let's use $MPICC consistently for now.

>
>> - In the same context,the declaration of 'a' in line 236 can be omitted (our
>> compiler gives ugly warning for unused variables.
>
>fixed this to use 'sizeof(a)'

	Maybe just removing that whole line is fine :)
>
>> Other notes:
>> - I used the settings as described in README.SX.It seems that the additional
>> iteration (calling make again in src/libf after the initial make) is no
>> longer necessary, at least not on the system I tested on which was upgraded
>> to Super-UX 14.1 from 12.1 in the meantime. As the additional invocation
>> causes no harm, we should better leave the README as is.
>
>good to know.  I'll make a note that the extra step might not be
>necessary, but doesn't hurt things.
>
>> - Although crossconfiguring does not work(checking for working ftruncate is
>> not possible), configuring on the target host and then do a cross-compile
>> works fine when setting up necessary aliases on the configure host (cc ->
>> sxcc etc.) or vice versa on the compile host (sxcc -> cc). Might be changed
>> in README.SX.
>
>I've updates README.SX
>
>> Test results for SX:
>> _ nf_test: the int1 and int2 tests fail with "value read not that expected"
>> for get operations and "Range error: No error" for put operations. I'll have
>> to look into this more closely (if it has to do with the fact that integer*1
>> is not supported on SX)
>
>Most likely.  We *shouldn't* be running int1 tests if there is no int1
>support:
>
>#if defined(NF_INT1_T)
>        external        test_nfmpi_get_var_int1
>#endif
>...
>#if defined(NF_INT1_T)
>        call test('nfmpi_get_var1_int1', test_nfmpi_get_var1_int1)
>#endif
>
>so this might not be working like w
>

	That's what makes me confused here.
	The configure script should have tested the avaibility of
	integer*1 and integer*2, and define/undef NF_INT1_T/NF_INT2_T
	accordingly in the header file "src/libf/nfconfig.inc"
	which is used in nf_test.

	We'll also look into this to see if there's anything improperly
	set.

>> - nc_test: passes with the expected two errors
>
>great!
>
>> - nc_test2: fails with a number of errors like this (also fails like this on
>> IA32):
>>         FAILURE at line 637 of util.c: ncmpi_put_vara_text_all: Edge+start
>> exceeds dimension bound
>> I assume this doesn't really matter as only nc_test and nf_test are included
>> in the 'testing' target of test/Makefile?
>
>nc_test2 still uses ptrdiff_t instead of MPI_Offset.  I'll add it to
>the 'testing' target to make sure I don't make such a mistake again.

	Isn't the nc_test2 just a temporary, outdated copy of the working
	nc_test? That's why I didn't include it in the make target.
	Maybe we should remove it to avoid confusion.

>> Final note: is the introduction of a ncmpi_delete() function (wrapper for
>> MPI_File_delete) still planned?
>
>It should be in 0.9.4:
>
>int
>ncmpi_delete(char *filename, MPI_Info info)
>
>I'm not sure if we'll ever need the 'info' parameter, but it's there
>just in case.
>
>Thanks for trying out the new release!
>
>==rob
>

	I really appreciate the valuable feedbacks from
	all of you trying out our software.

	Jianwei