On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:06 AM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote: > > 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.
We've used a lot more C99 in master/v2.x (i.e., since we forked for v1.7). It would be a much, much harder sell to remove all the C99 from there. Also, if SLES 10 is EOL, that also somewhat detracts from the desire to add a bunch of engineering work to support a 27-year-old version of C. As it is, I am surprised that your patches are so small for v1.10 -- that can't possibly remove all the C99 stuff from the entire code base. Are you are only selectively removing *some* of the C99 from the parts of Open MPI that you are compiling that make it work on your compiler? If so, that's a bit more of an oddball case: i.e., you're not proposing strict C89 adherence across the entire code base. -- 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
