On 20210916@13:58, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Michele, > > On 16-09-2021 12:26, Michele Martone wrote: > > I suggest to set OMP_NUM_THREADS to something small before tests -- say, > > min(nproc,4) -- for all purposes of testing librsb and octave-sparsersb. > > For architectural reasons, using all the cores (e.g.160) is nonsense here. > > Is that okay? > > That's up to you. I don't really care what you do to make the behavior > sane. (For avoidance of doubt, I mean the test should do this itself, > we're not going to set non-default variables on our infrastructure). You are (well, your CI is) building librsb with support for a limited threads count, but invoking it on a machine with lots of cores, without specifying the limited threads count.
So the behavior of librsb wrt this situation (it complains) is sane -- the user building it shall also know on how many threads to run it (and 160 won't make any sense for the next few years).. > > Would be great if you could try the tarball I linked at the beginning of > > the email -- I'm using some 'unsigned' prints -- that shall help a bit > > (one bit ;-) . > > That's too much work for me (I now just kick of a test of the package in > the archive). I suggest you just upload fixed packages. Let's see if I get access to that exotic machine, otherwise it's not trivial to fix all potential surprises..
