Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] MPICH2 question
From: Pavan Balaji (balaji_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-21 14:23:39


On 10/21/2009 10:38 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Pavan Balaji, le Wed 21 Oct 2009 10:36:33 -0500, a écrit :
>> On 10/21/2009 10:28 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> Pavan Balaji, le Wed 21 Oct 2009 09:55:36 -0500, a écrit :
>>>> 1. I see a AC_PROG_CC_C99 in the configure.ac. Do you require the
>>>> compiler to be C99 capable always?
>>> No, we ended up using constructs which should pass c90 and the compilers
>>> we have tested (aix, solaris, icc).
>> So shouldn't the AC_PROG_CC_C99 be gotten rid of?
>
> No because when C99 is available, we enable some optimization features,
> like __hwloc_restrict.

It looks like __hwloc_restrict is not actually checking for C99, but
instead doing something GNU specific:

#if (__GNUC__ > 2 || (__GNUC__ == 2 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 95))
# define __hwloc_restrict __restrict
#else
# if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L
# define __hwloc_restrict restrict
# else
# define __hwloc_restrict
# endif
#endif

Wouldn't it be better to add a feature test for restrict, instead of this?

 -- Pavan

-- 
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji