Responses inline, below.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:42 PM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote: > 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. > I am well known on this list and I think others will agree this was not my typical post. It is my response to your prior post: "I'll advise our customers not to use OMPI and document why" which I found to be rude and inappropriate. When a colleague and I report problems back in 2011 with the Open Sourced PathScale4, you were unhelpful at the time. We could not get the release to work on Linux, FreeBSD or Solaris and then you apparently abruptly stopped responding. Perhaps that previous experience (unintentionally/unconsciously) put a bit of additional "bite" into my posting this time. > 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) I have no control over the versions installed on the systems where I have access to PathScale compilers. As a guest by courtesy at that particular institution I have very little influence regarding installations of new software. It appears they no longer have any user demand for the eko compiler suite. When I visited www.pathscale.com prior to my previous posting, I could not find any information about what versions are current. So I had no passive means by which to determine that the release I had tested were so out-of-date as to be unsupported. Is such information available somewhere? Should I email "sales" for this sort of information in the future? > #2 Have you ever filed a support request with us? > I reported the issues twice here on this list and Jeff Squyres subsequently indicated the problem had been reported to PathScale. For reference: https://mail-archive.com/devel%40lists.open-mpi.org/msg18945.html https://mail-archive.com/devel%40lists.open-mpi.org/msg19205.html (and Jeff's reply stating the issue had been reported) > > #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 think that is a good think. I work in (for?) this community as the "oddball" that tests on all the compilers and OSes that I can possibly find. So, if I know that PathScale tests new releases of Open MPI with their own compilers then I can stop trying to use the installs you have noted are out-of-date. > > 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. > If I have made any factual errors, even by omission, then I apologize. It is not my intention to win some imagined debate by deception. > > 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. > I still have systems running Red Hat Linux 8 (that would be something like Fedora "negative 3"). I had to accept that Open MPI moved forward while I did not - I use Open MPI 1.6.5 on that system. When I reported a build issue with 2.0.1rc1 on Mac OS X 10.6, this community responded by dropping support for not just OS X 10.6, but also 10.7. I did inquire as to why, but did not fight against the decision to move Open MPI forward while inevitably leaving some systems behind. My advice to your customer is to accept that SLES10 (or perhaps just the glibc?) is too old to run a recent Open MPI release. -Paul -- Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
