Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-23 Thread Brice Goglin
Brice Goglin wrote: > Hello, > > A couple other things that I am not sure about in the API: > Everything is done, so I am ok with releasing something now (once the dynamic cpusets will be discussed). We talked about adding the physical distances into the XML output of lstopo, but it requires s

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Mon 21 Sep 2009 19:33:11 +0200, a écrit : > Jeff Squyres, le Mon 21 Sep 2009 12:31:41 -0400, a écrit : > > On Sep 21, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > >It's part of the language starting from C99 only. An application could > > >enable non-C99 mode where it becomes u

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 21 Sep 2009 12:31:41 -0400, a écrit : > On Sep 21, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > >It's part of the language starting from C99 only. An application could > >enable non-C99 mode where it becomes undefined, you can never know. > > That is a decade old, no? ;-) Yes

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Sep 21, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: It's part of the language starting from C99 only. An application could enable non-C99 mode where it becomes undefined, you can never know. That is a decade old, no? ;-) > Alternatively, this whole block in cpuset-bits.h could be wrapped

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 21 Sep 2009 10:04:21 -0400, a écrit : > On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > >> So it should be ok to use AC_C_RESTRICT then, right? > > > >But then we can't expose restrict in installed headers since we don't > >know _whether_ and how it is defined. > > > > U

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > So it should be ok to use AC_C_RESTRICT then, right? But then we can't expose restrict in installed headers since we don't know _whether_ and how it is defined. Understood, but is that really our problem? "restrict" is part of the C la

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 21 Sep 2009 09:28:04 -0400, a écrit : > >Note btw that the autoconf license makes an exception for code output > >from autoconf scripts, the GPL doesn't apply to them, there is > >“unlimited permission to copy, distribute, and modify” it. > > > > Yes, but that doesn't include

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > >Our __hwloc_restrict macro is actually a copy/paste of AC_C_RESTRICT's > >tinkering. Ah, wait, no, I'm mistaking with something else in another project. Looking closer, this definition is mine. Whew! :-) Note btw that the autoconf l

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 21 Sep 2009 08:51:35 -0400, a écrit : > On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > >> FWIW, is there a reason we're not using AC_C_RESTRICT in > >> configure.ac? This allows you to use "restrict" in C code > >everywhere; > >> it'll be #defined to something acce

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > FWIW, is there a reason we're not using AC_C_RESTRICT in > configure.ac? This allows you to use "restrict" in C code everywhere; > it'll be #defined to something acceptable by the compiler if > "restrict" itself is not. Our __hwloc_restr

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Samuel Thibault
Jeff Squyres, le Mon 21 Sep 2009 08:22:06 -0400, a écrit : > FWIW, is there a reason we're not using AC_C_RESTRICT in > configure.ac? This allows you to use "restrict" in C code everywhere; > it'll be #defined to something acceptable by the compiler if > "restrict" itself is not. Our __hwlo

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-21 Thread Jeff Squyres
On Sep 20, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Also, we have __hwloc_restrict everywhere in the public API, but also in > the manpages? Should we convert the latter into a regular "restrict" > keyword ? I had tried before already through the .cfg and that didn't work. Since we now

Re: [hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-20 Thread Samuel Thibault
Brice Goglin, le Thu 17 Sep 2009 09:50:57 +0200, a écrit : > * Do we actually need hwloc_get_type_order() or would > hwloc_compare_types() be enough? I can't find any example where some > type "orders" is not used for direct comparison. And the latter is probably clearer, indeed. > * I think the

[hwloc-devel] last API possible changes

2009-09-17 Thread Brice Goglin
Hello, A couple other things that I am not sure about in the API: * In struct hwloc_topology_info, we talked about renaming "is_fake" into something else since it means "this topology does not come from the local machine" but it's not necessarily "fake". Any idea? * Do we actually need hwloc_get