On 2/8/2012 4:43 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Paul H. Hargrove, le Thu 09 Feb 2012 01:41:47 +0100, a écrit :
>> On 2/8/2012 4:31 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> Paul H. Hargrove, le Thu 09 Feb 2012 01:28:53 +0100, a écrit :
>>>> Option #4:
>>>> CFLAGS='-qhalt=e -qsuppress=1506-077'
>>>> Appears to work for me for xlc-8.0 and xlc-9.0.
>>> That still looks dangerous to me: we don't know whatever warning
>>> might be added in the future. I'd rather add -qhalt=e only for the
>>> sched_setaffinity test.
>> I don't recommend adding -qsuppress automatically, just documenting it for
>> users that need xlc-8 or xlc-9.
> I'm not actually talking about the -qsuppress, but about still using
> -qhalt=e, which might make a lot more other warnings fatal.
>
Right.
I realized that about 10 seconds after hitting SEND and was composing a
retraction when the post above arrived.
-Paul
--
Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove_at_[hidden]
Future Technologies Group
HPC Research Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}