charm AT lists.siebelschool.illinois.edu

Subject: Charm++ parallel programming system

List archive

Re: [charm] pup() vs. custom packed message

From: Phil Miller <mille121 AT illinois.edu>
To: Nicolas Bock <nicolasbock AT gmail.com>
Cc: "charm AT cs.uiuc.edu" <charm AT cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [charm] pup() vs. custom packed message
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:36:09 -0800
List-archive: <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/charm/>
List-id: CHARM parallel programming system <charm.cs.uiuc.edu>

Custom packed messaged pre-date the implementation of the PUP framework, IIRC. So, some combination of not breaking whatever existing code used that older design, and pure inertia. Yes, they are doing about the same thing.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Nicolas Bock <nicolasbock AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I am looking at section 10.1.3.1, custom packed messages. Why isn't
the pup() framework used here? Aren't pack()/unpack() and pup() doing
the same?

Thanks,

nick
_______________________________________________
charm mailing list
charm AT cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/charm

[charm] pup() vs. custom packed message, Nicolas Bock, 11/14/2013
- Re: [charm] pup() vs. custom packed message, Phil Miller, 11/14/2013