Christopher,
Building with gnu is a non-starter for us. If we ever encounter an
issue, we can't just point our users to something else as a proposed
fix. There's also technical reasons why this may not work beyond pure
C code. (Fortran and C++ both being special)
Fortran compilers from differ
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet wrote:
> Folks,
>
>
> i am under the impression we are being mislead by the title of this thread.
>
> the patches that were initially submitted were enhanced and are available at
> https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi-release/pull/1345
>
>
> it bas
Folks,
i am under the impression we are being mislead by the title of this thread.
the patches that were initially submitted were enhanced and are
available at https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi-release/pull/1345
it basically does 3 things when the --disable-c99 option (yet an other
misleadi
There's a bunch of documentation on this and others could have googled
to find it. I didn't have the link handy since I was replying from a
mobile device. (I did offer to find the links in a previous email)
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
> Looking at the bug in google cache
Looking at the bug in google cache
(https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:p2WZm7Vlt2gJ:https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D5960+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
then isn’t the answer to just use -fgnu89-inline on this platform? Does that
not solve the linking issue? From what I c
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:32 AM, C Bergström
> wrote:
> [...snip...]
>>
>> Based on the latest response - it seems that we'll just fork OMPI and
>> maintain those patches on top. I'll advise our customers not to use
>> OMPI and document wh
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:32 AM, C Bergström
wrote:
[...snip...]
> Based on the latest response - it seems that we'll just fork OMPI and
> maintain those patches on top. I'll advise our customers not to use
> OMPI and document why.
>
> Thanks again
> __
In the usual place:
https://www.open-mpi.org/software/ompi/v2.0/
Please test!
We fixed a few things since rc1:
- several Hargroved items
- stdin propagation
There may still be some OSHMEM issues. We'll discuss these on the Webex
tomorrow.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporat
Just to clarify: we primarily use c99 features in our plugins as a means of
directly specifying which functions are being implemented, and which are not.
In c89, this can only be done by maintaining positional alignment - c99 allows
us to do this using the function names. Thus, the c99 method is
On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:32 AM, C Bergström wrote:
>
> Based on the latest response - it seems that we'll just fork OMPI and
> maintain those patches on top. I'll advise our customers not to use
> OMPI and document why.
Chris: you didn't answer several of the specific, directed questions on this
btw, I never felt quite comfortable with the option named "--disable-c99"
would "--disable-c99-check" be a better fit ?
feel free to suggest ab ever better option name
Cheers,
Gilles
On Monday, August 29, 2016, Gilles Gouaillardet <
gilles.gouaillar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ralph,
>
> I added tha
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:06 AM, C Bergström 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.
Just so people don’t spend a lot of time on this: as the release manager for
the 1.10 series, you are going to have to provide me with a great deal of
motivation to accept this proposed change. We ended C89 support way back in the
1.7 series, so reviving it here would really seem odd.
I haven’t
On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:06 AM, C Bergström 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
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 f
Ralph,
I added that option into this PR, since I thought it was safer (e.g. the
user has to explicitly use this option, and he hopefully knows what he is
doing) than simply not aborting if the compiler is not C99 capable.
Cheers,
Gilles
On Monday, August 29, 2016, r...@open-mpi.org wrote:
> I
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
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 Hje
Thanks Brice !
On Monday, August 29, 2016, Brice Goglin 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
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 ho
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)
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
