On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 10:49 -0400, Joe Landman wrote: > > Ashley Pittman wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 00:02 -0400, Joe Landman wrote: > > > >> What Microsoft will do is to take away as much of this as they can. I > >> haven't seen it yet, but I believe they will offer MPICH as a DLL, so if > >> PathScale wants to work along side some other device, you can select > >> this at runtime, and just have it work. This is a nice idea. > > > > Perhaps I've missed something here, what do windows DLLs provide that a > > linux .so doesn't?
> More to the point, this dynamic binding allows you to write to the API, > present a consistent ABI, and handle the hardware details elsewhere in a > driver which can be linked in by the .so/.dll/.eieio method at runtime. That's exactly what I thought. I was thrown by your "This is a nice idea" comment because using Windows is no different to Linux in this respect. Ashley, _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
