As noted by Paul Hargrove, the #if's surrounding the use of statfs()
and statvfs() in opal/util/path.c have apparently gotten stale (e.g.,
modern flavors of *BSD OSs no longer define __BSD). Changes:
* Add statfs and statvfs to the AC_CHECK_FUNCS in configure.ac
* Add a sanity check to ensure that we have at least one of statfs()
or statvfs(). Add a similar sanity check in opal/util/path.c, just
as defensive programming.
* Use AC_CHECK_MEMBERS in configure.ac to check for specific struct
statfs/struct statvfs members that we use in opal/util/path.c
* In path.c, add some #includes as listed on the OS man page for
statfs(2) (OS X 10.8.5/Mountain Lion)
* The previous code used statvfs() on Solaris and statfs() everywhere
else. Attempting to replicate this with behavior-based configure
testing led to fairly complicted if/else logic, so the new code
uses whichever of the two are available (i.e., it might actually
use both -- OS X 10.8.5 and RHEL 6.5 have both statfs() and
statvfs()). The rationale here is that we don't really care which
of the two functions report the answer; we'll take the answer
regardless of where it comes from. For example, if one function
returns a failure and the other does not, we'll use the results
from the successful function and ignore the failed one.
This new code seems to work on OS X and Linux. We'll have to see what
happens with MTT and future Paul Hargrove testing...
cmr=v1.7.4:reviewer=ompi-rm1.7:subject=Make statfs/statvfs more robust
This commit was SVN r30198.
c67c8e8187