I still don't think these need to be DECLSPEC. Debuggers can find
local symbols (including static symbols). Sun was having a problem
with the Intel compilers because the function was being inlined -- and
therefore the symbol didn't exist at all.
Removing the "static" was a simple optimization to force the intel
compiler to *not* inline the function. That's all.
We should *not* be exposing the MPIR_Breakpoint function to user
applications who -lmpi. That is what putting DECLSPEC there will do.
I believe that the DECLSPEC should be removed.
On Sep 30, 2009, at 12:08 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
Ethan is right. The MPIR_Breakpoint function will be queried by your
preferred parallel debugger, in order to set a breakpoint. Therefore,
to allow the debuggers to be able to find the function we have to make
sure it is externally visible, i.e. flagged with OMPI_DECLSPEC (for
the one in libmpi) and with ORTE_DECLSPEC for the one in libopen-rte.
And yes, we really need the *_DECLSPEC to make it visible, extern is
not enough.
Moreover, looking in the ompi/debugger/debugger.h file I realized that
the two functions declared inside are flagged OMPI_DECLSPEC when they
should not have been, as these two functions are not called from
outside the libmpi.
Please try r22032.
george.
On Sep 29, 2009, at 17:55 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>> The issue isn't why or why not static, Jeff - the issue is that we
>> get
>> a compiler warning whenever we do a developer build.
>>
>
> Right. The initial issue was the static-ness, though -- Ethan
> removed the static because some compilers were effectively inlining
> the function (and therefore removing the symbol from the library,
> making the parallel debugger attach stuff not work) presumably
> because a) the function was static, b) the function was short with
> no side effects, and c) the function was only called once within
> that .c file.
>
> Removing the "static" from the function prototype violated those
> assumptions so that it could no longer be inlined (And therefore the
> symbol definitely appears in the library). But then we ran across
> the "must be prototyped" warning.
>
> That's where all this came from. :-)
>
> So -- I still don't think we need to DECLSPEC the prototype. :-)
>
>> On Sep 29, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think we need to DECLSPEC it, do we? We don't need (or
>> > want) this symbol to be visible at the link level when user apps
>> > link against libmpi. You might want to put in a comment about
why
>> > it's not static so that we don't repeat this conversation again
>> next
>> > year. ;-)
>> >
>> > I think not having it DECLSPEC'ed should still work for the
>> debugger
>> > (since it worked before when it was static), but if you could
test
>> > it to be sure, that would be great...
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquy...@cisco.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> de...@open-mpi.org
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
