Note that with Apple's latest versions of Xcode (4.2 and higher, IIRC)
Clang is now the default C compiler. I am told that Clang is the ONLY
bundled compiler for OSX 10.8 (Mountain Lion) unless you take extra steps
to install gcc (which is actually llvm-gcc and cross-compiles for OSX 10.7).
So, Clang *is* gaining some "market share", though not yet in major HPC
systems.
-Paul
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote:
> If it's only on for Clang, I very much doubt anyone will care - I'm
> unaware of any of our users that currently utilize that compiler, and
> certainly not on the clusters in the national labs (gcc, Intel, etc. - but
> I've never seen them use Clang).
>
> Not saying anything negative about Clang - just noting it isn't much used
> in our current community that I've heard.
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <griboz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquy...@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Oct 31, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The rationale here is that correct MPI applications should not need
> to add any extra compiler files to compile without warnings.
> >>>
> >>> I would disagree with this. Compiler warnings are most useful when
> >>> they are on by default. Only a few developers will turn on a warning
> >>> because warnings are hard to discover and enabling a warning requires
> >>> an explicit action from the developer.
> >>
> >> Understood, but:
> >>
> >> a) MPI explicitly allows this kind of deliberate mismatch. It does not
> make sense to warn for things that are correct in MPI.
> >
> > I don't think it is MPI. It is the C standard that allows one to
> > store any pointer in void* and char*. But C standard also considers
> > lots of other weird things to be valid, see below.
> >
> >> b) Warnings are significantly less useful if the user looks at them and
> says, "the compiler is wrong; I know that MPI says that this deliberate
> mismatch in my code is ok."
> >
> > Well, one can also argue that since the following is valid C, the
> > warning in question should not be implemented at all:
> >
> > long *b = malloc(sizeof(int));
> > MPI_Recv(b, 1, MPI_INT, ...);
> >
> > But this code is clearly badly written, so we are left with a question
> > about where to draw the line.
> >
> >> c) as such, these warnings are really only useful for the application
> where type/MPI_Datatype matching is expected/desired.
> >
> > Compilers already warn about valid C code. Silencing many warnings
> > relies on conventions that are derived from best practices of being
> > explicit about something unusual. For example:
> >
> > $ cat /tmp/aaa.c
> > void foo(void *a) {
> > for(int i = a; i < 10; i++)
> > {
> > if(i = 5)
> > return;
> > }
> > }
> > $ clang -fsyntax-only -std=c99 /tmp/aaa.c
> > /tmp/aaa.c:2:11: warning: incompatible pointer to integer conversion
> > initializing 'int' with an expression of type 'void *'
> > [-Wint-conversion]
> > for(int i = a; i < 10; i++)
> > ^ ~
> > /tmp/aaa.c:4:10: warning: using the result of an assignment as a
> > condition without parentheses [-Wparentheses]
> > if(i = 5)
> > ~~^~~
> > /tmp/aaa.c:4:10: note: place parentheses around the assignment to
> > silence this warning
> > if(i = 5)
> > ^
> > ( )
> > /tmp/aaa.c:4:10: note: use '==' to turn this assignment into an
> > equality comparison
> > if(i = 5)
> > ^
> > ==
> > 2 warnings generated.
> >
> > According to C standard this is valid C code, but clang emits two
> > warnings on this.
> >
> >> Can these warnings be enabled as part of the warnings rollup -Wall
> option? That would be an easy way to find/enable these warnings.
> >
> > IIRC, -Wall warning set is frozen in clang. -Wall is misleading in
> > that it does not turn on all warnings implemented in the compiler.
> > Clang has -Weverything to really turn on all warnings. But
> > -Weverything is very noisy (by design, not to be fixed) unless one
> > also turns off all warnings that are not interesting for the project
> > with -Wno-foo.
> >
> > I don't think it is possible to disable this warning by default
> > because off-by-default warnings are discouraged in Clang. There is no
> > formal policy, but the rule of thumb is: either make the warning good
> > enough for everyone or don't implement it; if some particular app does
> > something strange, it can disable this warning.
> >
> >>> The pattern you described is an important one, but most MPI
> >>> applications will have matching buffer types/type tags.
> >>
> >> I agree that most applications *probably* don't do this. But
> significant developer in this community (i.e., Sandia) has at least
> multiple applications that *do* do it. I can't ignore that. :-(
> >
> > Here are a few approaches to solving this in order of preference:
> >
> > 0. Is this really a concern for Sandia? (I.e., do they target Clang?)
> >
> > 1. Ask the developer to silence the warning with a cast to 'void *' or
> > -Wno-type-safety. Rationale: compilers already do warn about valid
> > but suspicious code.
> >
> > 2. Turn off checking for char* just like for void*. Rationale: C
> > standard allows char* to alias a pointer of any type. Note that char*
> > is special in this regard (strict aliasing rules).
> >
> > 3. Turn off annotations by default in mpi.h.
> >
> > Dmitri
> >
> > --
> > main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
> > (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <griboz...@gmail.com>*/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
--
Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov
Future Technologies Group
Computer and Data Sciences Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
