That error has been fixed on the lates distribution.

JK


Axel Hecht wrote:
> 
> Eric Brown wrote:
> >
> > Guillaume Pottier wrote:
> > >
> > > Ron Parker wrote:
> > >
> <...>
> 
> >
> > I think that PVM internally can (optionally?) use MPI.  The only
> 
> I don't think so, as spawning processes, as down in PVM and used in
> pvmpov, is introduced in MPI 2.0 and to my knowledge very rarely
> implemented, at least not in mpich. I think lam has it, but I don't like
> the configuration possibilities. :-(
> So I don't think so.
> 
> On the other hand I have a port of pvmpov to mpi on the very end of my
> priority list :-)
> Mostly because pvm is not that stable, at least on our SUNMP. I talked
> to Harald Deischinger ( he did the port to 3.0 ) and he knows of some
> strange behaviours of pvmpov (sometimes some blocks don't get rendered)
> and he knows of no reason :-). So perhaps a port would be nice. But not
> at all urgent in my world, so hang on hang on.
> 
> Axel
> 
> > requirement for PVM is that all of the processors can use the same file
> > system (NFS works just fine).  With the current release of PVM you can
> > only use unix operating systems (linux works).  The upcoming release
> > will allow you to use PCs too.  The benefit of PVM is that it is
> > hardware independent.  You compile the PVM library and the program (in
> > this case PVMPov) for each platform.  Thus you can mix SGIs with Sparc
> > Stations.  If you have an 8 processor computer you can spawn 8 pvm
> > processes -- all which end up on the same physical computer but
> > different chips.
> >
> <...>
> 
> > -Eric Brown

-- 
CRAK Software (Password Recovery Software)
Http://www.crak.com
joh### [at] crakcom
602 863 9274 or 1 800 505 2725 In the USA

Post a reply to this message