Re: [OMPI devel] C89 support

[cbergstrom]

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  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

Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discuss

[cbergstrom]

  The term signed patch can mean multiple things, but I'm strongly in favor of any non-trivial code still requiring a contributor agreement. I can give some examples of why long term it makes sense if needed.Short version - you never know when you'll be forced into a license change and no project is immune from this.The actual CLA which is used is another problem and professionals at SFLC may be willing to help pro bono. If interested I may be able to provide non-lawyer det‎ails since I've worked on this 1st hand multiple times.CheersFrom: George BosilcaSent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 21:39To: Open MPI DevelopersReply To: Open MPI DevelopersSubject: Re: [OMPI devel] New Open MPI Community Bylaws to discussYes, my understanding is that unsystematic contributors will not have to sign the contributor agreement, but instead will have to provide a signed patch.  George.On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Shamis  wrote:Does it mean that contributors don't have to sign contributor agreement ?On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Geoffrey Paulsen  wrote:We have been discussing new Bylaws for the Open MPI Community.  The primary motivator is to allow non-members to commit code.  Details in the proposal (link below).
 
Old Bylaws / Procedures:  https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Admistrative-rules
New Bylaws proposal: https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/wiki/Proposed-New-Bylaws
 
Open MPI members will be voting on October 25th.  Please voice any comments or concerns.

___
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