Thanks Ashley !
this is now fixed in r32568
Cheers,
Gilles
On 2014/08/21 19:00, Ashley Pittman wrote:
> One potential other issue, r32555 means that any other struct members are now
> no longer zeroed, it might be worth putting a memset() or simply assigning a
> value of {0} to the struct in
One potential other issue, r32555 means that any other struct members are now
no longer zeroed, it might be worth putting a memset() or simply assigning a
value of {0} to the struct in order to preserve the old behaviour.
Ashley.
On 21 Aug 2014, at 04:31, Gilles Gouaillardet
Paul,
the piece of code that causes an issue with PGI 2013 and older is just a
bit more complex.
here is the enhanced test :
struct S { int i; double d; };
struct Y { struct S s; } ;
struct S x = {1,0};
int main (void)
{
struct Y y = { .s = x };
return 0;
}
it compiles just fine with PGI
Can somebody confirm that configure is adding "-c9x" or "-c99" to CFLAGS
with this compiler?
If not then r32555 could possibly be reverted in favor of adding the proper
compiler flag.
Also, I am suspicious of this failure because even without a language-level
option pgcc 12.9 and 13.4 compile the
If that's the case, then I wonder why it doesn't complain in other areas of the
code where we also use C99 syntax? Or is it perhaps "mostly" C99 compliant, but
doesn't like that specific use-case?
On Aug 20, 2014, at 7:20 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
> Really? That means PGI 2013
Really? That means PGI 2013 is NOT C99 compliant! Figures.
-Nathan
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:48:48PM -0400, svn-commit-mai...@open-mpi.org wrote:
> Author: ggouaillardet (Gilles Gouaillardet)
> Date: 2014-08-19 22:48:47 EDT (Tue, 19 Aug 2014)
> New Revision: 32555
> URL: