Keep in mind that just because you have the flag to enable or disable a specific language standard, it doesn't mean the compiler (I assume gcc) actually complies with that standard. Clang and now PathScale by inheritance is more strict on this matter.
I don't know if SLES10 or any of the partner forks of it (Cray) are all EOL or not, but I do know I that some of our government customers still use it and ask us to support it. ------------ If the patches are performance impacting I would never burden upstream, but I do hope that regardless you'll consider them. Based on the patch for 1.x it seems cosmetic. I'll take the most honest and unbiased look at the patches against 2.x and master to see if I feel guilty for asking for review. FWIW - Petsc recently just had a similar debate about introducing C99 and the biggest obstacle that I was aware of in general may be resolved. (That being that latest versions of Windows and MSVC 2015 actually claim some level of support for c99 now) On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:35 PM, r...@open-mpi.org <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > I hadn’t realized we still have a --disable-c99 configure option - that > sounds bad as we can’t possibly build that way. We need to internally perform > the configure check, but we shouldn’t be exposing a configure option as that > just confuses people into thinking it really is an option. > >> On Aug 29, 2016, at 7:27 AM, Nathan Hjelm <hje...@me.com> wrote: >> >> FYI, C99 has been required since late 2012. Going through the commits there >> is no way Open MPI could possibly compile with —std=c89 or —std=gnu99. Older >> compilers require we add —std=c99 so we can not remove the configure check. >> >> >> commit aebd1ea43237741bd29878604b742b14cc87d68b >> Author: Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> >> Date: Wed Nov 14 04:52:39 2012 +0000 >> >> Per discussion we will now require a C99 compiant compiler. >> >> This change will enable the use of C99 features in Open MPI; subobject >> naming, restricted pointers, etc. >> >> cmr:v1.7 >> >> This commit was SVN r27604. >> >> >> -Nathan >> >>> On Aug 29, 2016, at 8:18 AM, Gilles Gouaillardet >>> <gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Brice ! >>> >>> On Monday, August 29, 2016, Brice Goglin <brice.gog...@inria.fr> wrote: >>> s/June 2016/June 2006/ :) >>> >>> Anyway, it ended on July 31st based on https://www.suse.com/lifecycle/ >>> >>> Brice >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 29/08/2016 16:03, Gilles Gouaillardet a écrit : >>>> According to wikipedia, SLES 10 was released on June 2016, and is >>>> supported for 10 years. >>>> (SLES 12 is supported for 13 years, and I honestly do not know whether >>>> SLES 10 support has been extended) >>>> so SLES 10 might already been EOL >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Gilles >>>> >>>> On Monday, August 29, 2016, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> The patches for master/v2.x will be considerably larger (we have embraced >>>> at least a few of the C99 constructs quite a bit). >>>> >>>> When is the EOL for SLES 10? >>>> >>>> Can you provide the doc links and an example of the link error that these >>>> patches are fixing? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Aug 29, 2016, at 1:04 AM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet <gil...@rist.or.jp> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Christopher, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i made PR #1345 https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi-release/pull/1345 >>>>>> >>>>>> (there is no copyright in these files, let me know how i should credit >>>>>> pathscale (if you want that of course) >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure that there is anything substantial enough to be >>>>> copyright. If the shoe was on the other foot I'd highly question >>>>> anyone who pushed for attribution on these patches. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> this is basically your patch plus a few changes : you need to configure >>>>>> with >>>>>> '--disable-c99' if you are using pre C99 compiler. >>>>>> >>>>>> i noted these patches are for the v1.10 series. do you also expect v2.x >>>>>> (and >>>>>> master too ?) can be built with pre C99 compilers too ? >>>>> >>>>> If these style of changes are acceptable we'll do patches for all. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your help on this. I have a couple other small things I'm >>>>> hoping to get upstream after this. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> devel mailing list >>>>> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >>>>> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeff Squyres >>>> jsquy...@cisco.com >>>> For corporate legal information go to: >>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
