On 29 April 2012 19:42, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here[0] is a patch that makes octave-forge build under gcc 4.7 and
> another[1] for openmpi 1.5.
Thanks. I looked at your modifications, and they mostly seem safe for
earlier versions of gcc. Did 4.7 now decide that no return in non-void
functions is now an error, not just a warning? Is this standard
behaviour? I'm just curious.
Can you please comment on the following modifications?
--- octave-forge.orig/miscellaneous-1.0.11/src/xmltree_read.c
+++ octave-forge/miscellaneous-1.0.11/src/xmltree_read.c
@@ -2258,7 +2258,7 @@ case 49:
XML__RULE_SETUP
#line 406 "xmltree_read.l"
{
- LEAVE; STag_scalar(); pcdata = BUFFERSET(pcdata); ENTER(IN_scalar);
+ LEAVE; STag_scalar(); BUFFERSET(pcdata); ENTER(IN_scalar);
}
XML__BREAK
case 50:
--- octave-forge.orig/control-2.2.5/src/AB13BD.f 2009-12-04
01:46:15.000000000 -0300
+++ octave-forge/control-2.2.5/src/AB13BD.f 2012-02-02
13:02:17.678456705 -0300
@@ -292,6 +292,7 @@
C
C Error return.
C
+ AB13BD = ZERO
CALL XERBLA( 'AB13BD', -INFO )
RETURN
END IF
I'm just curious how you found these and why do they need to be
changed.
I'm not sure about these sort of changes:
--- octave-forge.orig/parallel-2.0.5/src/send.cc 2012-04-29
16:25:21.907000132 -0300
+++ octave-forge/parallel-2.0.5/src/send.cc 2012-04-29
16:25:33.409000132 -0300
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
#include <sys/poll.h>
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <netdb.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
Octave-Forge isn't only compiled for Unix-like systems, so this
#include will break compilation on Windows. We probably need an
autoconf macro to check for unistd.h. Can you write one?
> The patches apply to several modules - if you need it split by
> module, let me know.
No, this is fine, thanks.
> The openmpi patch shows undue reliance on internal openmpi state,
> something which is the cause of trouble. I don't know enough of that
> functionality to find a better fix, so I'll leave it up to you guys
> ;-)
I'm not sure about this patch. Checking for version numbers is Evil™,
because if a future version disables what you were checking for, then
your check is worthless. You should instead check for functionality,
not for version numbers. It would be better to write some autoconf
macro that toggles HAVE_STAT_UCOUNT or whatever. Can you also write
one?
Thanks,
- Jordi G. H.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
