Re: [hwloc-devel] signed / unsigned

2009-12-16 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > Ok, done. Please review: > >https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/hwloc/changeset/1475 I definitely broke something. :-( >From my embedding test, I make a trivial app that does the following: mytest_hwloc_topology_init();

Re: [hwloc-devel] signed / unsigned

2009-12-16 Thread Jeff Squyres
Ok, done. Please review: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/hwloc/changeset/1475 Additionally, there were a whole pile of signed/unsigned comparisons left in lstopo-draw.c that I am a bit too tired to figure out -- could you guys resolve them? On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Brice Goglin

[hwloc-devel] signed / unsigned

2009-12-16 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Dec 16, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > While preparing to SVN commit, I made the default for HG checkouts to compile > with debug and picky modes. I now see a TRUCKLOAD of signed/unsigned > comparison warnings. I'll look into these right now... A bunch of them were fairly

Re: [hwloc-devel] more embedded

2009-12-16 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Dec 16, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > > ...or do you want me to bring over the embedding stuff to the svn trunk RSN? > > I vote for merging as soon as possible. We'll merge before 1.0 anyway, > so we'll have to fix things one day or another. By the way, once it's > merged, I'll

Re: [hwloc-devel] more embedded

2009-12-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Wed 16 Dec 2009 10:35:22 -0500, a écrit : > Actually, do you mind if I add it? No pb, you can as well just add the whole file indeed. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] more embedded

2009-12-16 Thread Jeff Squyres
Actually, do you mind if I add it? The m4 stuff changed *significantly* in the embedding code -- so every time something changes in configure or m4 on the svn trunk, it's a real PITA to re-merge it into the embedding hg. ...or do you want me to bring over the embedding stuff to the svn trunk

Re: [hwloc-devel] more embedded

2009-12-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Wed 16 Dec 2009 09:42:21 -0500, a écrit : > Yes -- we (OMPI) have m4 for checking for oodles of attributes. Ok, found it in config/ompi_check_attributes.m4. > Want me to bring them over and you and trim want you don't want? I'll pick up directly from openmpi. Samuel

Re: [hwloc-devel] more embedded

2009-12-16 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Would it be desirable to have compiler visibility enabled in hwloc? > > > > Yes. I don't have an m4 fragment to check for visibility off-hand, > > BTW, do you have an m4 fragment off-hand to check for the unused > attribute? Yes -- we

Re: [hwloc-devel] [hwloc-svn] svn:hwloc r1466

2009-12-16 Thread Brice Goglin
jsquy...@osl.iu.edu wrote: > Add bullet about the compar -> compare rename > > Text files modified: >trunk/NEWS | 3 +++ >1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > Modified: trunk/NEWS >

Re: [hwloc-devel] more embedded

2009-12-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Wed 16 Dec 2009 15:06:15 +0100, a écrit : > Jeff Squyres, le Tue 15 Dec 2009 21:13:55 -0500, a écrit : > > Would it be desirable to have compiler visibility enabled in hwloc? > > Yes. I don't have an m4 fragment to check for visibility off-hand, BTW, do you have an m4

Re: [hwloc-devel] more embedded

2009-12-16 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:06 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Would it be desirable to have compiler visibility enabled in hwloc? > > Yes. I don't have an m4 fragment to check for visibility off-hand, > that's why I hadn't done it yet and just relied on the hwloc_ prefix :) > (which is still useful

Re: [hwloc-devel] more embedded

2009-12-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Tue 15 Dec 2009 21:13:55 -0500, a écrit : > Would it be desirable to have compiler visibility enabled in hwloc? Yes. I don't have an m4 fragment to check for visibility off-hand, that's why I hadn't done it yet and just relied on the hwloc_ prefix :) (which is still useful when

Re: [hwloc-devel] "compar"

2009-12-16 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:27 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > > Did you really mean "compare"? Or was the extra "e" just too long? ;-) > > I don't have anything against "compare" but I'd like to understand why > many functions like "qsort" take a comparison function that is often > named "compar"