The patches can be seen here (Trivial and hopefully acceptable) https://github.com/pathscale/ompi/commit/42cf248bd026148fc09148626dd3029515498472 https://github.com/pathscale/ompi/commit/c181c0bb080ada407602319ea45548f428e724e0 https://github.com/pathscale/ompi/commit/fb8940303a7e85bb0b462d1f5c268be5ece3176b
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Nathan Hjelm <hje...@me.com> wrote: > We do not depend on any C99 specific behavior out of libc that I know of. We > depend on the types (stdint.h) and syntax (sub-object naming, variadic > macros, etc). A little surprised there are any linking failures with Open MPI > even with an ancient glibc. > > If the patch is simple please send it to us and we will take a look. If it > doesn’t disrupt anything we will consider it. > > -Nathan > >> On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:41 AM, cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: >> >> It's well documented that the version of glibc that goes with SLES10 is not >> c99. As well as that gcc's claimed c99 is not in fact conformant. Newer >> glibc fixed this but SLES10 is stuck. I can provide exact documentation >> links if necessary. >> >> Clang and any real c99 compiler fails at link time. >> >> This effects all versions of clang or us up to svn trunk. >> >> The patch is simple and non-performance impacting. >> >> Original Message >> From: Nathan Hjelm >> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 20:23 >> To: Open MPI Developers >> Reply To: Open MPI Developers >> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] C89 support >> >> Considering gcc more or less had full C99 support in 3.1 (2002) and SLES10 >> dates back to 2004 I find this surprising. Clangs goal from the beginning >> was full C99 support. Checking back it looks like llvm 1.0 (2003) had C99 >> support. What version of clang/llvm are you using? >> >> -Nathan >> >>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:38 AM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote: >>> >>> I realize a number of changes have been made to make the codebase C99. >>> As I'm setting up more testing platforms, I found that this caused >>> Clang (and us) to be broken on SLES10. While I realize that platform >>> is quite *old*, it is still used in production at more than one sight >>> which we support. If there isn't a strong feeling against it, would >>> you guys accept a patch to get this building again.. >>> >>> Thanks >>> _______________________________________________ >>> devel mailing list >>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
