GNU bug report logs - #35666
[PATCH 0/2] Build a thread-safe hdf5 library

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 35666 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Bavier <bavier <at> cray.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes <at> inria.fr>, Ricardo
 Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: "35666 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <35666 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>,
 "pgarlick <at> tourbillion-technology.com" <pgarlick <at> tourbillion-technology.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#35666] [PATCH 0/2] Build a thread-safe hdf5 library
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 15:09:25 +0000

I think this should be fine, though I've not heard of anyone who has relied on this feature.  The "unsupported" part here is that the posix lock used for thread-safety is not hoisted into the higher-level API calls.  So if your colleague is using the C++ interface and expecting thread-safety, they are out of luck.  So the disclaimer is that only the low-level C interface gains thread-safety, and the rest are no better.

Eric Bavier, Scientific Libraries, Cray Inc.

________________________________________
From: Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes <at> inria.fr>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 08:07
To: Ricardo Wurmus
Cc: Eric Bavier; pgarlick <at> tourbillion-technology.com; 35666 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#35666] [PATCH 0/2] Build a thread-safe hdf5 library

Hi!

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

[…]

>> It also tells you that, if you insist, you can go ahead and pass
>> ‘--enable-unsupported’, but you’re on your own.
>>
>> We found that Debian chose to pass ‘--enable-unsupported’, and indeed
>> that seems to be saner than providing a variant that does very little,
>> but does it in a thread-safe way.
>
> What other effects does “--enable-unsupported” have?  I see that in
> Fedora “--enable-threadsafe” was removed in 2008 because it’s
> “incompatible with --enable-cxx and --enable-fortran”.

“--enable-unsupported” allows you to force a build that combines C++,
Fortran, and thread-safety.  If you don’t pass that flag, you have to
choose between thread-safety and C++/Fortran¹.  A tough choice!

> Instead they seem to be building different flavours: one with
> --enable-fortran, another with --enable-cxx, yet another with MPI and
> --enable-parallel.

Problem is, my colleagues have code that expects both C++ and
thread-safety (as crazy as it might seem).  They were using the Debian
package until now and hadn’t realized about this.

> Do we have contact to the hdf5 developers to ask what the implications
> of “enable-unsupported” are?

I think it’s a warranty-void kind of flag: by passing it, the user
asserts they understand they’re using a configuration not “officially
supported” by the HDF Group, meaning that if it’s buggy, we’re on our
own.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

¹ You would think it’s an April fool’s day prank, but it’s not!  We’re
  in May, at least in my timezone.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.