On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:06 AM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> > 3. More complete patches for fixing the issues. Specifically, the 3 >> > provided patches fix certain issues in some parts of the code base, but the >> > same issues occur in other places in the code base. As such, the provided >> > patches are not complete. >> >> The patches against 1.x are complete. If you want to test and fix 2.x >> branch or git master feel free to pull my patches when I push them to >> our github. > > > > I think the "completeness" issue might be misunderstood. > There are numerous components in Open MPI, some of which will not be > compiled if configure fails to find the necessary dependencies. > So, there is a concern that your patches may be complete for your customer's > site but not for another. > For instance, a SLES10 install with headers and libs for some additional > supported network will compile files you have not patched. > > Take, for instance, the case of declaring the loop control variable in > initialization clause of a for-statement: > In the 1.10.3rc4 source I have on hand, I find (at least) 112 instances in > 51 files: > > $ grep -r 'for *(int' . | wc -l > 112 > $ grep -rl 'for *(int' . | wc -l > 51
Thanks for the clarification - The most sensible thing seems to be try that gnu89-inline flag and see if it will be a work-around or fork and we maintain our own stuff on top. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
