I fully concur - just limited by my available time to fix it. Jeff has volunteered to step in, though.
On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:44 PM, marco atzeri <marco.atz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Il 1/9/2014 5:10 AM, Ralph Castain ha scritto: >> Actually, as I look at it, the logic escapes me anyway. Basically, you >> only have two options - use the vfs struct for Sun, and use fs struct >> for everything else. I'm not aware of any other choice, and indeed the >> list of all the systems for the latter actually is intended to amount to >> "anything else". >> >> So I just changed it to an "else" statement in the trunk and scheduled >> it for 1.7.4 if it passes muster - see how this works for you. >> >> Ralph >> > > Ralph, > please note that there are other similar cases in the same file > > in "bool opal_path_nfs" function at row 434 and 462 > > the one at 489 is a multiple if with no default case, > so the code will fail to perform for any architecture > no reported there, like CYGWIN, and it is very hard to notice > > In general this type of "ifdefined" around platform > are very bad for portability or platform evolution. > Adding a new platform will be a hell of work. > > The Autoconf approach to portability "should be" to test > for features, not for versions or platform. > > Regards > Marco > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
