+1 on Ralph and George's comments. Want to make a dummy component somewhere that uses this kind of initialization and see what happens? Put a test for the C99 initialization style in configure.m4 to see if it works or not; MTT will then check this for all the compilers that we care about.
On Jan 19, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > I believe the majority of structs used in OMPI are actually declared to be > opal objects of some flavor, so I'm not sure how much this will actually > accomplish. Other than that, I have no real objection - either way works fine > for me. > > > On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:29 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > >> I'm with you on that. Let's create a fake module using the ISO C99 naming >> scheme, and leave it to MTT to figure out where is breaks! >> >> george. >> >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 14:23 , Nathan Hjelm wrote: >> >>> I don't know if this has been discussed before or if this will break >>> Windows (or some obscure platform) support but I would like to start using >>> the ISO C99 style for struct initialization (see section 6.7.8, example 10 >>> in http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf). Using this >>> style would make mca code much easier to read. Any thoughts? Would this >>> break something? >>> >>> Example: >>> struct module_foo { >>> char *bar; >>> int baz; >>> }; >>> >>> struct foo foobar = { >>> .bar = "foobar", >>> .baz = 1 >>> }; >>> >>> -Nathan >>> HPC-3, LANL >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devel mailing list >>> de...@open-mpi.org >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
