headers
Peter Tröger | 19 Jun 2012 19:19
Picon

OGF35 Wrap-Up

Dear all,

we had a small but productive meeting at OGF35. Beside the further 
discussion about OCCI-DRMAA, we analyzed the DRMAAv2 C binding comments 
collected so far:

- We support the proposal by Daniel to introduce an overall 
drmaa2_string type, instead of using the native char* in the binding. 
The intended semantic is to use drmaa2_string whenever the application 
is supposed to clean up such variable. This can be done by calling 
drmaa2_string_free() or the free function of the surrounding structure 
(e.g. with job templates), depending on the context. This freeing demand 
must be  documented in the spec. It should further be clarified that 
drmaa2_string_list will return drmaa2_string items in the get() operation.

- The pointer-nullification-on-free issue, which would lead to a 
complete shift to double-indirected pointer parameters, has to be 
decided in a voting.

- We agree to the proposal of Stephan Klauck for introducing additional 
interface handle free functions. This leads to a rejection of the "_h" 
suffix proposal.

- There was no clear consensus about the MACOSX issue raised by Rayson 
Ho, so this must be decided in the voting procedure. We obviousely 
agreed to the TRU64 issue also raised by him. Both things will change 
the root spec.

- We agree to the 64bit processor architecture issue raised by Rayson. 
The current proposal is to add 64Bit variations for all identified ISAs.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Rayson Ho | 20 Jun 2012 00:39
Picon

Re: OGF35 Wrap-Up

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Peter Tröger <peter@...> wrote:
> - We support the proposal by Daniel to introduce an overall drmaa2_string
> type, instead of using the native char* in the binding. The intended
> semantic is to use drmaa2_string whenever the application is supposed to
> clean up such variable. This can be done by calling drmaa2_string_free() or
> the free function of the surrounding structure (e.g. with job templates),
> depending on the context. This freeing demand must be  documented in the
> spec. It should further be clarified that drmaa2_string_list will return
> drmaa2_string items in the get() operation.
>
> - The pointer-nullification-on-free issue, which would lead to a complete
> shift to double-indirected pointer parameters, has to be decided in a
> voting.

So what does the new interface look like??

I was not very clear before - if we were to take the address of the
pointer and pass it to the free routine, then we should also take the
address of the pointer and pass it into the routine that creates the
object.

I don't think there is an API that requires the software developer to
pass in different types for the allocation & de-allocation.

Traditional C has malloc() & free(), the programmer gets a pointer &
frees the object using the same pointer. In C++, new & delete is the
same.

Even the example that Daniel used also has a matching allocate & free interface.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ian Johnson | 25 Jun 2012 13:09

DRMAA Java impl of JobInfo.getExitStatus() returning incorrect value

All,

The getExitStatus() of the JobInfo object, returned by a call to  
Session.wait(Session.JOB_IDS_SESSION_ANY, Session.TIMEOUT_WAIT_FOREVER),  
is returning an exit status of 0. This is incorrect since I know my job is  
returning an exit status of 3: submitting my job using "qsub -sync y"  
yields an exist status of 3.

I'm using:

drmaa-gridengine-6.2u5.jar
drmaa-common-1.0.jar

and

libdrmaa.so.1.0 from ge2011.11

Does anyone know why I get different values of exit status? Any pointers,  
potential bug fixes or potential threading issues with the implementation  
of org.ggf.drmaa.Session?

If you need more information please do not hesitate to ask.

--

-- 
Kind regards,

Ian Johnson
Software Engineer
ian.johnson@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane