A few things to note:

1) This is NOT a problem w/ the SS12.3 compilers on the same machine.
So, one could say "upgrade your compiler" (a free download) and not delay 1.5.5 for this issue.

2) This is ONLY a problem on Linux, and not on Solaris (both SS12.2 and SS12.3 tested for x86, x86-64, Sparc/v9 and Sparc/v8plus)

3) Testing the trunk I DON'T see the problem with either SS12.2 or SS12.3.
This is interesting, because it probably means that a u_char definition is SOMEWHERE in the headers (because libevent *is* getting built).

Whatever else may be done, I think this should be fixed "properly" (whatever that may equate to) for 1.6. The way I see it now, it feels like OMPI is getting a definition of u_char only "by accident".

-Paul

On 2/21/2012 12:16 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
Building the v1.5 branch on Linux with the Solaris Studio 12.2 compilers I see the following failure:
"[srcdir]/opal/event/event.h", line 797: Error: Type name expected instead of "u_char". "[srcdir]/opal/event/event.h", line 798: Error: Type name expected instead of "u_char". "[srcdir]/opal/event/event.h", line 1184: Error: "," expected instead of "*".
Where line 1184 is a prototype containing "u_char *".

As far as I can find, only several files below opal/event/ contain any use of "u_char".
There is a typedef for u_char in hwloc, but no use that I could see.

To the best of my knowledge u_char is NOT defined by any standard, and thus there is no particular header one can reliably find it in. The alternatives, of course are "unsigned char" or "uint8_t" (defined in stdint.h).

I had a look at the trunk and VISUALLY is appears the same problem exists in:
   opal/event/event.h
   opal/mca/event/libevent2013/libevent/event.h
However, my testing is currently confined to the v1.5 branch in the hopes of finally getting the next 1.5.5rc out the door.

-Paul


--
Paul H. hargrovephhargr...@lbl.gov
Future Technologies Group
HPC Research Department                   Tel: +1-510-495-2352
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory     Fax: +1-510-486-6900

Reply via email to