July 2013 - petsc-dev - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Jed Brown 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > I doubt these options are universal for all C compilers? Since > BuildSystem knows about all compilers it would always use the > appropriate options when --with-c89 are passed. The above works for GCC, Clang, Intel, Open64, and PathScale. Some compilers have different executable names for C89 (IBM and Sun). PGI uses -c89. I didn't find a C89 mode for Cray.

1 0

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Barry Smith 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

On Jul 6, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > >> So why not wrap all those things in --with-c89 ./configure option? >> (instead of the ugly --with-developer). > > Or we can just spell it CFLAGS='-std=c89 -pedantic -Wno-long-long' and > not have another configure option. I doubt these options are universal for all C compilers? Since BuildSystem knows about all compilers it would always use the appropriate options when --with-c89 are passed.

1 0

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Jed Brown 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > So why not wrap all those things in --with-c89 ./configure option? > (instead of the ugly --with-developer). Or we can just spell it CFLAGS='-std=c89 -pedantic -Wno-long-long' and not have another configure option.

1 0

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Barry Smith 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

On Jul 6, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > >> --with-c89 ? Since that is essentially what we are trying to achieve? > > Yeah, some of us have PETSC_ARCHes with > > CFLAGS='-std=c89 -pedantic -Wno-long-long' So why not wrap all those things in --with-c89 ./configure option? (instead of the ugly --with-developer). Barry >

1 0

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Jed Brown 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > --with-c89 ? Since that is essentially what we are trying to achieve? Yeah, some of us have PETSC_ARCHes with CFLAGS='-std=c89 -pedantic -Wno-long-long'

1 0

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Barry Smith 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

--with-c89 ? Since that is essentially what we are trying to achieve? Barry On Jul 6, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > >> That doesn't match out normal naming conventions. --with-developer ? > > --with-developer-pedantry ;-)

1 0

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Jed Brown 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

Barry Smith <bsmith(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > That doesn't match out normal naming conventions. --with-developer ? --with-developer-pedantry ;-)

1 0

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Barry Smith 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

On Jul 6, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > Satish Balay <balay(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > >> reverted now > > Should we make a ./configure --developer that turns on a collection of > more pedantic flags? That doesn't match out normal naming conventions. --with-developer ?

1 0

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Jed Brown 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

Satish Balay <balay(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > reverted now Should we make a ./configure --developer that turns on a collection of more pedantic flags?

1 0

Re: [petsc-dev] nightly builds
by Satish Balay 06 Jul '13

06 Jul '13

On Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Jed Brown wrote: > Satish Balay <balay(a)mcs.anl.gov> writes: > > > I guess warnings are ok to push to users. [we already push -Wall > > -Wwrite-strings to users - so added one more ] > > Those warnings usually refer to actual bugs or misleading code. Lots of > people write in C99 or "GNU C", both of which allow mixed declarations > and statements. In particular, -Wdeclaration-after-statement never > affects correctness, just some interpretation of portability that may or > may not be relevant to the user. reverted now satish

1 0