Begin forwarded message:

From: Service Account <[email protected]> Subject: [mpich-commits] [mpich] MPICH primary repository branch, master, updated. v3.2a1-34-geda105b Date: October 1, 2014 5:29:25 PM CDT To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Reply-To: <[email protected]>

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing the project "MPICH primary repository".

The branch, master has been updated via eda105b029572ebf7f4008f6de2e1afb9ccf6fc2 (commit) via 98114df4c0504568ab188ea98a9d1269d087bd82 (commit) via ad25799865749680338c05264c8007242f01326a (commit) from 6b8c426d90b28bb0ed6ff6ade6ac03a4e4b96634 (commit)

Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those revisions in full, below.

- Log ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://git.mpich.org/mpich.git/commitdiff/eda105b029572ebf7f4008f6de2e1afb9c...

commit eda105b029572ebf7f4008f6de2e1afb9ccf6fc2 Author: Junchao Zhang <[email protected]> Date: Tue Sep 16 15:58:55 2014 -0500

Remove unnessary array init in MPIU_CHKLMEM_DECL

Initializing mpiu_chklmem_stk_sp_ to 0 should already have the effect to initialize mpiu_chklmem_stk_[n_].

Signed-off-by: Antonio J. Pena <[email protected]>

diff --git a/src/include/mpimem.h b/src/include/mpimem.h index a217e8b..e1478a5 100644 --- a/src/include/mpimem.h +++ b/src/include/mpimem.h @@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ extern char *strdup( const char * ); }} #else #define MPIU_CHKLMEM_DECL(n_) \ - void *(mpiu_chklmem_stk_[n_]) = {0};\ + void *(mpiu_chklmem_stk_[n_]); \ int mpiu_chklmem_stk_sp_=0;\ MPIU_AssertDeclValue(const int mpiu_chklmem_stk_sz_,n_)

You might want to revert this. My recollection is that not all compilers are smart enough to see that mpiu_chklmem_stk_ is not used before being defined, which can lead to a *lot* of warnings throughout the MPICH codebase. Also, what's the sudden interest in restoring C89 support again? The whole world really does support enough of C99 now... Seems like a big waste of time and an unnecessary annoyance to developers who might want to use useful C99 features (e.g., named structure initializers). -Dave