On 20 Jul 2010 13:03:57 +0100
"N.M. Maclaren" wrote:
>
> Not on most systems. While this is more clearly illegal, similar
> remarks apply to its safety. If there were any debugging C compilers
> around, it might well get trapped, but those are about as common as
> unicorns.
>
> It's a horrible
On Jul 20 2010, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Also, it seems like the 3rd parameter could be problematic if it ever
> goes larger than 2B -- it'll increment in the wrong direction, won't
> it?
Not on most systems.
Ah -- I just checked -- the associativity of + and (cast) are equal, and
are righ
On Jul 20, 2010, at 8:03 AM, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> > Also, it seems like the 3rd parameter could be problematic if it ever
> > goes larger than 2B -- it'll increment in the wrong direction, won't it?
>
> Not on most systems.
Ah -- I just checked -- the associativity of + and (cast) are equal,
On Jul 20 2010, Jeff Squyres wrote:
The change was to add casting:
} while (!OPAL_ATOMIC_CMPSET_32((int32_t*)&ep->eager_rdma_remote.seq,
(int32_t)ftr->seq, (int32_t)ftr->seq+1));
Is it safe to simply cast a (uint32_t*) to (int32_t*) in the first param?
Pretty safe. While there ARE
The change was to add casting:
} while (!OPAL_ATOMIC_CMPSET_32((int32_t*)&ep->eager_rdma_remote.seq,
(int32_t)ftr->seq,
(int32_t)ftr->seq+1));
Is it safe to simply cast a (uint32_t*) to (int32_t*) in the first param?
Also, it seems like the 3rd
Thanks Chris!
On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:23 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I've committed a fix for this in r23441
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:58:31 -0400
> Jeff Squyres wrote:
>
>> Chris Yeoh --
>>
>> SVN blame says that this is your line of code. Can you fix
Hi Jeff,
I've committed a fix for this in r23441
Regards,
Chris
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:58:31 -0400
Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Chris Yeoh --
>
> SVN blame says that this is your line of code. Can you fix?
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
> > Yo IB-folks
> >
> > Are w
Chris Yeoh --
SVN blame says that this is your line of code. Can you fix?
On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> Yo IB-folks
>
> Are we ever going to get these warnings corrected? This is from current
> trunk, built on a Linux system --with-openib. It has been this way for quit
Yo IB-folks
Are we ever going to get these warnings corrected? This is from current trunk,
built on a Linux system --with-openib. It has been this way for quite some
time...
In file included from btl_openib_proc.h:27,
from btl_openib.c:50:
btl_openib_endpoint.h: In function ‘po
