Update to Arguments for PAPIF_flops_rate, PAPIF_flips_rate, PAPIF_epc #154
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull Request Description
This PR updates the PAPI Fortran wrappers for:
PAPIF_flops_rate
,PAPIF_flips_rate
, andPAPIF_epc
. All three of the aforementioned functions had a first argument ofint event
. However, settingint event
equal to events such asPAPI_FP_OPS
forPAPIF_flops_rate
,PAPI_FP_INS
forPAPIF_flips_rate
, andPAPI_TOT_INS
forPAPIF_epc
would result in an error being output, specifically -7. Which means the "Hardware event does not exist". This is not the correct behavior due to the events existing and the associated C low-level functions running correctly given the same input.To fix this issue,
int event
was changed toint *EventCode
forPAPIF_flops_rate
,PAPIF_flips_rate
, andPAPIF_epc
. As well as*EventCode
being passed to the C function calls within the wrappers.Two other minor updates are:
PAPIF_flops_rate
,PAPIF_flips_rate
, andPAPIF_epc
within thepapi_fwrappers.c
source file.event
toEventCode
, the idea with this change is to keep the argument naming scheme similar to other PAPI functions such asPAPIF_event_code_to_name
.Example code for
PAPIF_flops_rate
with the changes mentioned above:Possible output is from running the above script on Guyot:
Author Checklist
Why this PR exists. Reference all relevant information, including background, issues, test failures, etc
Commits are self contained and only do one thing
Commits have a header of the form:
module: short description
Commits have a body (whenever relevant) containing a detailed description of the addressed problem and its solution
The PR needs to pass all the tests