On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:32 AM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> > wrote: > [...snip...] >> >> Based on the latest response - it seems that we'll just fork OMPI and >> maintain those patches on top. I'll advise our customers not to use >> OMPI and document why. >> >> Thanks again >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.open-mpi.org >> https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > Though I participate on this list, I am not one of the Open MPI developers, > and do not pretend to speak for them. > > So, speaking only for myself, I already recommend that users of any recent > Open MPI avoid compiling it using the PathScale compilers. > My own testing shows that both ekopath-5.0.5 and ekopath-6.0.527 experience > Internal Compiler Errors or SEGVs when building Open MPI, and at least one > other package I care about (GASNet). > So I think you can understand why I find it ironic that PathScale should > request that the Open MPI sources revert to C89 to support PathScale > compilers for an EOL distro.
Paul - Is this your typical post? I can't tell if you're trying to be rude or it's accidental. Moving your complaint to more technical points #0 As stated before this issue is not exclusive to PathScale, but inherited from clang and root caused by glibc. A forum post with a similar complaint/question http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/minimum-glibc-on-Linux-needed-to-work-with-clang-in-c99-mode-td2093917.html clang bugzilla is currently limited access, but when back to public you can get more details here https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5960 Again thanks for hijacking the thread, but in regards to your issue #1 Have you tested a newer version? (You appear to be more than a year off in versions and not on anything officially supported) #2 Have you ever filed a support request with us? #3 You should realize that we're in the process of trying to setup versions of OpenMPI that are validated and 100% tested. (Thus trying to avoid problems like this going forward) I have no problem taking a hit on a bug or some issue, but I would hope that anyone an ironic sense of humor would fact check before complaining publicly. My motivation isn't driven by some deficiency with our c99 support, but an older platform. If I tried to build this ${_____} on SLES11 it wouldn't be a problem. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
