On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:22:19AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 09/09/2016 08:24 AM, Jerry James wrote: > > There is no soname bump in this release, but one section of the API > > changed in a backwards-incompatible way. > > If they broke ABI, why wasn't the soname bumped? > > > If the suitesparse maintainer does not object, I would also like to > > fix something I noticed in the build logs. GCC complains about > > unrecognized pragmas. > > - #pragma ivdep: I propose to change all instances of this to #pragma GCC ivdep. > > - #pragma novector: there is no GCC equivalent, so nothing can be done here. > > - #pragma omp ...: I propose to build CHOLMOD with -fopenmp so these > > will be defined and used. > > I'm concerned about this last change - if I understand it correctly everything > that link to CHOLMOD will now need to use -fopenmp as well. I'm not > necessarily opposed to this, but it does have larger ramifications. I know in > various places libraries will provide both serial and openmp versions. I > wonder if it's time for Fedora to work out a scheme for this, or perhaps > simply embrace the multi-core age and accept openmp versions as standard. Why would you need to compile all other libraries that use something with -fopenmp just because you built something with -fopenmp? If it is a shared library, it will be (have to be) linked with -fopenmp and thus link libgomp and libpthread, but other libraries can still be serial or use POSIX threads on their own. If it is a static library, sure, you need to make sure you link with -fopenmp whatever links that static library in, but that doesn't mean you need to compile anything else with -fopenmp. If the library compiled with -fopenmp calls into code from other libraries from parallel regions, sure, you need to make sure that those functions are thread safe, but that is about it. Jakub -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
