Sorry -- had to go build a LAM 7.0.6 to test. :-)
Yes, we expanded laminfo a lot in 7.1.x. I guess the only string that
*may* help you in the 7.0.x line is the architecture line...?
I would say your best bet would be to put it in laminfo somewhere. You
might want to compare the 7.1.x laminfo source with your source; it
shouldn't be hard to do. Heck, you could even easily add a line that
just prints the sizeof(void*) and not try to draw on LAM's
configuration information.
On Mar 8, 2005, at 9:50 AM, Tim Prince wrote:
> At 06:25 AM 3/8/2005, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Yes, having the information in laminfo should work. The newest
> version of lam which I have installed at the moment is 7.0.3, which
> complains on 'laminfo -all.' I don't see anything in laminfo which
> gives the desired information on 32- or 64- bit build mode; I'd try
> implementing something, if that is reasonable to do.
>
>> Can you just use the laminfo command instead? (the lamboot -V info
>> is only maintained for hysterical raisins)
>>
>> laminfo was intended to be the vehicle for all this kind of
>> information -- it offers it in both prettyprint and easily parsable
>> formats. For example, try:
>>
>> laminfo -all -parsable | grep pointer
>>
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Tim Prince wrote:
>>
>>> Several of us agreed we would like to try adding an indication of
>>> how lam was built to the lamboot message. Specifically, for an
>>> x86-64 system, we would like to have it confirm whether it is a 32-
>>> or 64-bit lam. Could someone point me to where the message is
>>> generated, so I could experiment?
>>>
>>> Tim Prince
>
> Tim Prince
> _______________________________________________
> This list is archived at http://www.lam-mpi.org/MailArchives/lam/
>
--
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} jsquyres_at_[hidden]
{+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/
|
