Oh, no worries at all, we are in agreement here. That said, in this particular
case, I don't consider the time wasted since it helped me find a little bug in
the openmp check which has confused a couple of people already, and has a
trivial solution :)
--
You are receiving this because you are
Oh and just to be clear, that "too much time" was not to be taken personally.
It's just that every now and then some silly little detail ends up drawing
disproportional amount of attention to itself, and this seems to be one of
those.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to thi
OK. In that case, there *is* one thing to be done, which is to fix the bug in
that check (that I mentioned above). I'll do that, and close this PR. Thanks!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/r
Closed #1454.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1454#event-4067094114___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm
Don't drop the entire version check, we do want to draw the line somewhere. If
not 4.5 then 4.0, if only because older than that hasn't been tested at all,
and we don't want to worry about ancient toolchains in new versions.
Compatibility defines like priority() here are quite commonly used, but
@dmnks commented on this pull request.
> @@ -22,6 +22,10 @@
#include "debug.h"
+#if _OPENMP < 201511
+#define priority(x)
Hmm, now that I think about it - wouldn't this be too brittle a macro? What if
we define/include a function `priority()` in the future? Wouldn't this replace
it?
--
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1454
-- Commit Summary --
* Fix
* Drop dependency on OpenMP 4.5
* Add conditional for OMP priority clause
-- File Changes --
M INSTALL (7)
M build/pack.c (4)
