[torqueusers] [torquedev] Release Candidate for TORQUE 2.5.8

David Beer dbeer at adaptivecomputing.com
Wed Aug 24 16:28:56 MDT 2011



----- Original Message -----
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:10 PM, David Beer <dbeer at adaptivecomputing.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> On Aug 24, 2011, at 4:31 PM, David Beer
> >> <dbeer at adaptivecomputing.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Ken Nielson <
> >>>> knielson at adaptivecomputing.com > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a new release candidate for TORQUE available. This has
> >>>> the
> >>>> fixes for the compiler warnings with the exception of
> >>>> process_request.c, function get_creds line 288. dereferencing
> >>>> type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules.
> >>>>
> >>>> in my opinion, this is a warning that shouldn't be ignored
> >>>> indefinitely (not that anyone has suggested it). I think it would
> >>>> be
> >>>> good to fix before the official release. I would also add
> >>>> -fno-strict-aliasing to my CFLAGS until it were fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would volunteer to the look at the code responsible for the
> >>>> warning,
> >>>> but I can't guarantee I would have a chance any time soon.
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> torquedev mailing list
> >>>> torquedev at supercluster.org
> >>>> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torquedev
> >>>
> >>> I tried to look at the error myself, but I didn't see any compiler
> >>> warnings when I compiled the code:
> >>>
> >>> $ gcc --version
> >>> gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.5.2-8ubuntu4) 4.5.2
> >>> Copyright (C) 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> >>> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
> >>> There
> >>> is NO
> >>> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> >>> PURPOSE.
> >>>
> >>> I used to think that gcc warnings were a moving target (as Michael
> >>> Jennings points out) because they added warnings, but it appears
> >>> they also add and then remove things from the warning lists.
> >>>
> >>> As far as the greater debate of whether or not gcc warnings should
> >>> be enabled by default, I think it makes a lot of sense to only
> >>> have
> >>> developers compile with warnings enabled and let users just
> >>> compile
> >>> and run the code. When I'm a user, I only care about warnings that
> >>> cause issues with the software. I think that this warning would
> >>> have
> >>> been caught as well except that it is only a warning for certain
> >>> versions of gcc.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> David Beer
> >>> Direct Line: 801-717-3386 | Fax: 801-717-3738
> >>>    Adaptive Computing
> >>>    1656 S. East Bay Blvd. Suite #300
> >>>    Provo, UT 84606
> >>>
> >>> _____________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >> What are your compiler flags?
> >
> > gcc -g -W -Wall -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-long-long -pedantic
> > -Werror -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -o .libs/printjob printjob.o
> > ../lib/Libpbs/.libs/libtorque.so -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib
> 
> I think this warning would require -O2 or higher (or explicit strict
> aliasing optimization turned on)

I don't believe that optimization levels change what gcc considers a warning, but I recompiled it with -O2 and didn't receive a warning that way either.

gcc -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-long-long -pedantic -Werror -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -o .libs/hostn hostn.o  ../lib/Libpbs/.libs/libtorque.so -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib
creating chk_tree

-- 
David Beer 
Direct Line: 801-717-3386 | Fax: 801-717-3738
     Adaptive Computing
     1656 S. East Bay Blvd. Suite #300
     Provo, UT 84606



More information about the torqueusers mailing list