Chris At the risk of being annoying, it would really help me if you could answer my question: is Gilles correct in his feeling that we are looking at a scenario where you can support 90% of C99 (e.g., C99-style comments, named structure fields), and only the things modified in this PR are required?
I’m asking because these changes are minor and okay, but going back thru the code to revise all the comments and other C99isms would be a rather large task. > On Aug 30, 2016, at 7:06 AM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: >> On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:42 PM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote: >>> >>> Paul - Is this your typical post? I can't tell if you're trying to be >>> rude or it's accidental. >> >> I believe that multiple people on this thread are reacting to the >> passive-aggressive tones and negative connotations in charged replies. > > Total bullshit - If any of my replies were "charged", passive > aggressive or otherwise that was not my intention. Anyone who I > thought has replied rudely, I have called out directly and I don't > mince words. > > I'm not interested to spend 50 replies on 3 small patches. If you guys > don't care about platform X, Foo compiler or older standards I respect > that. My 1st email started with what I consider a humble tone. My > patches are public and I've given all the details I have time for. > > Last try > >> >> I'd like to see: >> >> 1. The specific link error that we're talking about. > > As posted before - the error is *exactly* the same as in the public > clang bug report. > > (Thanks to Nathan) > https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:p2WZm7Vlt2gJ:https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D5960+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us > >> >> 2. All the information listed on https://www.open-mpi.org/community/help/ >> for compile/build problems. > > I'm not going to shift threw this wall of text to try to figure out > what you feel is missing. (Now my tone is "curt" if I have to be > clear) > >> >> 3. More complete patches for fixing the issues. Specifically, the 3 >> provided patches fix certain issues in some parts of the code base, but the >> same issues occur in other places in the code base. As such, the provided >> patches are not complete. > > The patches against 1.x are complete. If you want to test and fix 2.x > branch or git master feel free to pull my patches when I push them to > our github. > > You can verify the patches with clang and SLES10. In the near future > it's likely I'll even post prebuilt binaries of clang which could be > used for easier validation. There's also of course the nightly EKOPath > builds that are available.. etc etc > ------------ > In parting - I will test LDFLAGS|CFLAGS=“-fgnu89-inline” and if it > does indeed fix the issue without side effects I'll let you guys know. > _______________________________________________ > 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
