From df9ddfbba0389d71d136a21e7dc0f9ed88c6b648 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Scot Breitenfeld Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 11:46:24 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Update t_span_tree.c Additional fixes. --- testpar/t_span_tree.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/testpar/t_span_tree.c b/testpar/t_span_tree.c index 7ec47c4fd2d..9dd56367ab7 100644 --- a/testpar/t_span_tree.c +++ b/testpar/t_span_tree.c @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ coll_write_test(int chunk_factor) For testing collective hyperslab selection write In this test, we are using independent read to check - the correctedness of collective write compared with + the correctness of collective write compared with independent write, In order to thoroughly test this feature, we choose @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ coll_write_test(int chunk_factor) mspaceid = H5Screate_simple(MSPACE_RANK, mdim, NULL); /* - * Select two hyperslabs in memory. Hyperslabs has the same + * Select two hyperslabs in memory. Hyperslabs have the same * size and shape as the selected hyperslabs for the file dataspace * Only the starting point is different. * The first selection @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ coll_read_test(void) mspaceid = H5Screate_simple(MSPACE_RANK, mdim, NULL); /* - * Select two hyperslabs in memory. Hyperslabs has the same + * Select two hyperslabs in memory. Hyperslabs have the same * size and shape as the selected hyperslabs for the file dataspace. * Only the starting point is different. * The first selection @@ -868,7 +868,7 @@ coll_read_test(void) ** sel_rank fastest changing indices, with origin (in the ** higher indices) as indicated by the start array. ** -** Note that this function, is hard coded to presume a +** Note that this function is hard-coded to presume a ** maximum dataspace rank of 5. ** ** While this maximum is declared as a constant, increasing @@ -946,7 +946,7 @@ lower_dim_size_comp_test__select_checker_board(const int mpi_rank, const hid_t t * Note that the following computation depends on the C99 * requirement that integer division discard any fraction * (truncation towards zero) to function correctly. As we - * now require C99, this shouldn't be a problem, but noting + * now require C99, this shouldn't be a problem, but note * it may save us some pain if we are ever obliged to support * pre-C99 compilers again. */ @@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ lower_dim_size_comp_test__select_checker_board(const int mpi_rank, const hid_t t /* Now set up the stride and block arrays, and portions of the start * and count arrays that will not be altered during the selection of - * the checker board. + * the checkerboard. */ i = 0; while (i < ds_offset) { @@ -1195,13 +1195,13 @@ lower_dim_size_comp_test__select_checker_board(const int mpi_rank, const hid_t t ** expected data. Return true if it does, and false ** otherwise. ** -** The supplied buffer is presumed to this process's slice +** The supplied buffer is presumed to be this process's slice ** of the target data set. Each such slice will be an ** n-cube of rank (rank -1) and the supplied edge_size with ** origin (mpi_rank, 0, ... , 0) in the target data set. ** ** Further, the buffer is presumed to be the result of reading -** or writing a checker board selection of an m (1 <= m < +** or writing a checkerboard selection of an m (1 <= m < ** rank) dimensional slice through this processes slice ** of the target data set. Also, this slice must be parallel ** to the fastest changing indices. @@ -1220,7 +1220,7 @@ lower_dim_size_comp_test__select_checker_board(const int mpi_rank, const hid_t t ** ** Further, supposing that this is process 10, this process's ** slice of the dataset would be a 10 x 10 2-cube with origin -** (10, 0, 0) in the data set, and would be initialize (prior +** (10, 0, 0) in the data set, and would be initialized (prior ** to the checkerboard selection) as follows: ** ** 1000, 1001, 1002, ... 1008, 1009 @@ -2285,9 +2285,9 @@ lower_dim_size_comp_test(void) * * 2) Has no in memory buffer for any other chunk. * - * The test differers from Rob Latham's bug report in - * that is runs with an arbitrary number of processes, - * and uses a 1 dimensional dataset. + * The test differs from Rob Latham's bug report in + * that it runs with an arbitrary number of processes, + * and uses a 1-dimensional dataset. * * Return: void *