[torqueusers] [torquedev] Release Candidate for TORQUE 2.5.8

Glen Beane glen.beane at gmail.com
Wed Aug 24 17:08:41 MDT 2011





On Aug 24, 2011, at 6:28 PM, David Beer <dbeer at adaptivecomputing.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> ----- 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

Optimization level can affect what is considered a warning -- without strict aliasing optimization enabled there are no strict aliasing rules to break 


More information about the torqueusers mailing list