I fully concur - just limited by my available time to fix it. Jeff has volunteered to step in, though.
On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:44 PM, marco atzeri <marco.atzeri_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Il 1/9/2014 5:10 AM, Ralph Castain ha scritto:
>> Actually, as I look at it, the logic escapes me anyway. Basically, you
>> only have two options - use the vfs struct for Sun, and use fs struct
>> for everything else. I'm not aware of any other choice, and indeed the
>> list of all the systems for the latter actually is intended to amount to
>> "anything else".
>> So I just changed it to an "else" statement in the trunk and scheduled
>> it for 1.7.4 if it passes muster - see how this works for you.
> please note that there are other similar cases in the same file
> in "bool opal_path_nfs" function at row 434 and 462
> the one at 489 is a multiple if with no default case,
> so the code will fail to perform for any architecture
> no reported there, like CYGWIN, and it is very hard to notice
> In general this type of "ifdefined" around platform
> are very bad for portability or platform evolution.
> Adding a new platform will be a hell of work.
> The Autoconf approach to portability "should be" to test
> for features, not for versions or platform.
> devel mailing list