Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: Ralf Wildenhues (Ralf.Wildenhues_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-23 02:38:05


Hi George,

* George Bosilca wrote on Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 08:15:30AM CET:
> As I continue to have the same problem with the missing ltdl.h header I
> reported few days ago, I spend some time today to dig a little bit inside
> to find out what and how happens. Finally, I figure out the problem. It
> happens only after the last set of changes on the Makefile.am and only on
> systems where there is not a ltdl.h installed on a default location.
> Otherwise ... on systems where the ltdl.h is installed ... the ugliest
> things may happens. We can use our ltdl.h in some directories (like the
> opal base) and the system one in others (because a missing -I). How ?
> Simply because most of the base components require the
> opal/mca/mca_base_component_repository.h include. In this file at line 27
> there is a include "ltdl.h" supposely protected by the OMPI_WANT_LIBLTDL.
> This define is always true as it come from the ompi_config.h so the ltdl.h
> is always required. Now on system where this file does not exist on some
> system include directories we are supposed to get the one we have ...
> except that the -I for our include is not added in all the base
> directories after the last set of changes to the Makefile.am.

Hmm. Wasn't the decision a while ago to
  #include <libltdl/ltdl.h>
consistently, plus, in order to allow the next version of libltdl to
work seamlessly as well, to also -I.../libltdl (although the Libtool
documentation suggests otherwise)?

I haven't followed changes regarding this closely, but above would be
safe for OpenMPI in both cases: both failure to include the in-tree
ltdl.h as well as failure with Libtool-2.0 will result in compilation
errors, and are thus easy to find and fix.

Cheers,
Ralf