I'm a little nervous about needing to specify per-compiler flags just to get
basic compilation of the code (per-compiler optimization flags are a different
thing).
I suppose we could use the Autoconf AC_PROG_CC_C99 macro to try to find out the
right flags; I *assume* that it will handle all the
Yeah, it seems that if the standard is not specified gcc backs off to gnu89
(c90 + some of c99). I have tested the following compilers so far:
gcc : ok by default, not ok with -pedantic unless -std=c99 is specified
icc : ok without any flags, strangely ok with -no-c99 (probably
su
This is because gcc is defaulting to -std=c90. I strongly suspect that
adding -std=c99 to the CFLAGS eliminates George's warnings. However,
one may need to hunt down equivalent dialect flags for other compilers too.
-Paul
George Bosilca wrote:
same type of warnings with gcc-4.3.3
george.
I didn't see those warning on my mac when I compiled but gcc does indeed
complain if -pedantic is specified without the -std=c99 option. So, in order to
use the initialization style we would need to specify -std=c99 option for gcc.
Not sure if there would be a problem specifying -std=c99?
-Nat
same type of warnings with gcc-4.3.3
george.
On Jan 20, 2011, at 15:21 , George Bosilca wrote:
> Even before getting into the Oracle compiler, a fully compliant C99 compiler
> such as gcc 4.2.1 complains a lot about the new code. Here is what I get:
>
> ../../../../../ompi/orte/mca/debugger/
Even before getting into the Oracle compiler, a fully compliant C99 compiler
such as gcc 4.2.1 complains a lot about the new code. Here is what I get:
../../../../../ompi/orte/mca/debugger/dummy/dummy_component.c:25: warning: ISO
C90 forbids specifying subobject to initialize
../../../../../ompi
The tarball got mucked up last night due to a minor ROMIO file permission
problem; let's see what happens tonight.
On Jan 19, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> Hopefully we'll find out tomorrow but I think I vaguely remember an issue
> with the Studio compilers and this type of initializ
Hopefully we'll find out tomorrow but I think I vaguely remember an
issue with the Studio compilers and this type of initialization style.
--td
On 01/19/2011 05:22 PM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
Done. I added the module orte/mca/debugger/dummy and I will remove it
tomorrow.
-Nathan
HPC-3, LANL
On
Done. I added the module orte/mca/debugger/dummy and I will remove it tomorrow.
-Nathan
HPC-3, LANL
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Jeff Squyres wrote:
+1 on Ralph and George's comments.
Want to make a dummy component somewhere that uses this kind of initialization
and see what happens? Put a test for
+1 on Ralph and George's comments.
Want to make a dummy component somewhere that uses this kind of initialization
and see what happens? Put a test for the C99 initialization style in
configure.m4 to see if it works or not; MTT will then check this for all the
compilers that we care about.
On
I believe the majority of structs used in OMPI are actually declared to be opal
objects of some flavor, so I'm not sure how much this will actually accomplish.
Other than that, I have no real objection - either way works fine for me.
On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:29 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> I'm wi
I'm with you on that. Let's create a fake module using the ISO C99 naming
scheme, and leave it to MTT to figure out where is breaks!
george.
On Jan 19, 2011, at 14:23 , Nathan Hjelm wrote:
> I don't know if this has been discussed before or if this will break Windows
> (or some obscure platf
I don't know if this has been discussed before or if this will break Windows
(or some obscure platform) support but I would like to start using the ISO C99
style for struct initialization (see section 6.7.8, example 10 in
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf). Using this st
13 matches
Mail list logo
