Yes, this is annoying and frustrating for us to have deal with this kind of thing, but imagine how annoying and frustrating it is for an average user who has 1/100th the HPC experience we do. This is why I like to have these fully resolved at the library level; yes it is more work for us; but less for the average user.
Barry > On Apr 12, 2021, at 11:21 PM, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I like the diversity of slightly different test boxes. If all test boxes > are the same than that limits what variants we test and reduces the > usefulness of the CI; since users will face this diversity in their machines > and end up with errors we never see before hand (which is bad). > > This kind of "after the fact initialization "for (q = 0; q < > LANDAU_MAX_Q_FACE; q++) col_scale[q] = 0.0; " is unlikely to satisfy the > various compilers and optimization levels. Best to figure out universally how > to indicate when the variable is declared that it gets initialized suitably > (for confused compilers that don't realize the initialized values are never > used and so print warning messages). > > > This seems to work for C++? > https://icarus.cs.weber.edu/~dab/cs1410/textbook/7.Arrays/initialize.html > <https://icarus.cs.weber.edu/~dab/cs1410/textbook/7.Arrays/initialize.html> > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/201101/how-to-initialize-all-members-of-an-array-to-the-same-value > > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/201101/how-to-initialize-all-members-of-an-array-to-the-same-value> > seems to indicate one can initialize all entries in C with one {0} but who > trusts the web or all compilers. > > Have you tried the C form? > > Barry > > > > >> On Apr 12, 2021, at 8:06 AM, Satish Balay via petsc-dev >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> This job gets run on either pj01 or pj02 - each have slightly different >> version of gcc. (and they behave differently wrt certain warnings) >> >> [trade-off with diversity in testing and having redundancy in available >> work machines - so jobs are not stuck on a single box] >> >> I guess I should somehow fix this (perhaps switch them all to same >> OS/versions]. >> >> Satish >> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Mark Adams wrote: >> >>> This warning went away. i don't know why. >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 2:10 PM Mark Adams <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> I get this error in CI with complex float: >>>> https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/-/jobs/1170144554 >>>> <https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/-/jobs/1170144554> >>>> >>>> I put in code earlier to fix this warning about uninitialized vars, but >>>> now it does not seem to work: >>>> >>>> /home/glci/builds-stage1/AbTGp5-t/0/petsc/petsc/src/ts/utils/dmplexlandau/plexland.c:414:94: >>>> error: ‘col_scale[4]’ may be used uninitialized in this function >>>> [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] >>>> 2251 <https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc/-/jobs/1170144554#L2251> PetscScalar >>>> vals[LANDAU_MAX_Q_FACE*LANDAU_MAX_Q_FACE],row_scale[LANDAU_MAX_Q_FACE],col_scale[LANDAU_MAX_Q_FACE]; >>>> >>>> Yet I have code to initialize col_scale: >>>> >>>> for (q = 0; q < LANDAU_MAX_Q_FACE; q++) col_scale[q] = 0.0; // >>>> suppress warnings >>>> >>>> I get a similar error with an integer array. >>>> >>>> Any suggestions? >>>> >>> >
