Just so people don’t spend a lot of time on this: as the release manager for the 1.10 series, you are going to have to provide me with a great deal of motivation to accept this proposed change. We ended C89 support way back in the 1.7 series, so reviving it here would really seem odd.
I haven’t yet seen anything on this thread that convinces me to accept it. > On Aug 29, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:06 AM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote: >> >> If the patches are performance impacting I would never burden >> upstream, but I do hope that regardless you'll consider them. Based on >> the patch for 1.x it seems cosmetic. I'll take the most honest and >> unbiased look at the patches against 2.x and master to see if I feel >> guilty for asking for review. > > We've used a lot more C99 in master/v2.x (i.e., since we forked for v1.7). > It would be a much, much harder sell to remove all the C99 from there. > > Also, if SLES 10 is EOL, that also somewhat detracts from the desire to add a > bunch of engineering work to support a 27-year-old version of C. > > As it is, I am surprised that your patches are so small for v1.10 -- that > can't possibly remove all the C99 stuff from the entire code base. Are you > are only selectively removing *some* of the C99 from the parts of Open MPI > that you are compiling that make it work on your compiler? If so, that's a > bit more of an oddball case: i.e., you're not proposing strict C89 adherence > across the entire code base. > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@lists.open-mpi.org > https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
