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
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? ;-)
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.
> >
>
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
