Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] autoconf warnings: openib BTL
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-11 18:08:57


On Mar 6, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Mike Dubman <miked_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> but AF_IB is always declared, regardless of actual presence in the kernel.

Right, which is why I don't understand the original comments that you can't do a run-time test for it...

>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Ralph Castain <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Let me see if I can help translate. I think the problem here is Jeff's comment about a "run time check", which wasn't actually what he is proposing here.
>
> If you look at Jeff's proposed code, what he is saying is that you don't need to use AC_TRY_RUN - you can just build based on whether or not AF_IB is declared, and so AC_CHECK_DECLS is adequate. If the resulting code fails, then that's an error anyway. So you can just protect the code as he shows and be done with it.
>
> This would avoid all the warnings we are now receiving on the trunk, and do what you need. Make sense?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 4:08 AM, Vasily Filipov <vasily_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> >> #if HAVE_DECL_AF_IB
> >> rc = try_using_af_ib();
> >> if (OMPI_ERR_NOT_AVAILABLE == rc) {
> >> rc = try_the_other_way();
> >> }
> >> #else
> >> rc = try_the_other_way();
> >> #endif
> > I mean I cannot use "another way" if func call for "try_using_af_ib" fails (call for "try_the_other_way()") because RDMACM was compiled for AF_IB usage (different fields in structs, different functions prototypes).
>
> Ok, that means the implementation is reduced to:
>
> #if HAVE_DECL_AF_IB
> rc = try_using_af_ib();
> #else
> rc = try_the_other_way();
> #endif
>
> Right? If so, I don't see why you need the AC_TRY_RUN -- if RDMACM is easily detectable as to which way it is compiled (because it has, for example, different fields), then AC_CHECK_DECLS should be enough, right?
>
> I must be missing something...?
>
> --
> Jeff Squyres
> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
> For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/03/14306.php
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/03/14307.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
> Link to this post: http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/03/14308.php

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/