[ofiwg] ofiwg item: supporting other OS's

Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail.com
Fri Jan 8 21:03:30 PST 2016

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <
jgunthorpe at obsidianresearch.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:47:38PM -0800, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> >     C11 support requires gcc 4.9 for full compiler features (yes, I know
> >     the library side is missing) and that is now nearly a two
> >     year old compiler.
> > Does GCC 4.9 support atomics? I don't have a binary handy...
> Claims to, it is very similar to the C++11 atomics which are there.

The preprocessor macro claimed to support them at least a year before they
did.  The bug report was rejected because the website noted the lack of
feature support.  Apparently, documenting bugs makes them no longer bugs in
the GCC world :-\  I no longer take GCC seriously...

> 4.9 is a significant compiler because it is the first g++ release that
> really supports C++11 and all the polishing in C++14 very well.
> I think we will see it or a slightly newer one made widely available
> because of that. I already am working on C++ code bases that are
> incompatible with 4.8 because of that, and it is unquestionably worth
> it for C++.

C++ programmer love showing off how smart they are by using the latest and
greatest-according-to-Herb-Sutter features at the expense of platform
portability.  "Hey look, my new C++ code is so awesome that it can only be
compiled with the Clang trunk!" :-)

On the other hand, C programmers love showing off how smart they are by
writing code that runs everywhere and getting stuff done, without having to
wait for 25 compiler bugs to be fixed.

> > I don't know that the group will go for anything past C99, but we should
> try to
> > enumerate the list of C11 features we would use if it were permitted.
> Realistically public header files probably have to remain at a C89/C99
> compatible level, which puts a crimp on a lot of new features :(
> What features?  I'm still not clear on what C11 features you find

We should not need atomics or threads in the public API.

Generic selection?  Anonymous unions?


Jeff Hammond
jeff.science at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofiwg/attachments/20160108/7e4faa76/attachment.html>

More information about the ofiwg mailing list