Let me see if I can help translate. I think the problem here is Jeff's
comment about a "run time check", which wasn't actually what he is
proposing here.
If you look at Jeff's proposed code, what he is saying is that you don't
need to use AC_TRY_RUN - you can just build based on whether or not AF_IB
is declared, and so AC_CHECK_DECLS is adequate. If the resulting code
fails, then that's an error anyway. So you can just protect the code as he
shows and be done with it.
This would avoid all the warnings we are now receiving on the trunk, and do
what you need. Make sense?
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
<jsquy...@cisco.com>wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 4:08 AM, Vasily Filipov <vas...@dev.mellanox.co.il>
> wrote:
>
> >> #if HAVE_DECL_AF_IB
> >> rc = try_using_af_ib();
> >> if (OMPI_ERR_NOT_AVAILABLE == rc) {
> >> rc = try_the_other_way();
> >> }
> >> #else
> >> rc = try_the_other_way();
> >> #endif
> > I mean I cannot use "another way" if func call for "try_using_af_ib"
> fails (call for "try_the_other_way()") because RDMACM was compiled for
> AF_IB usage (different fields in structs, different functions prototypes).
>
> Ok, that means the implementation is reduced to:
>
> #if HAVE_DECL_AF_IB
> rc = try_using_af_ib();
> #else
> rc = try_the_other_way();
> #endif
>
> Right? If so, I don't see why you need the AC_TRY_RUN -- if RDMACM is
> easily detectable as to which way it is compiled (because it has, for
> example, different fields), then AC_CHECK_DECLS should be enough, right?
>
> I must be missing something...?
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquy...@cisco.com
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> de...@open-mpi.org
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> Link to this post:
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/03/14306.php
>
