Sounds perfect. I'll vote for it.
On Oct 11, 2007, at 5:23 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2007, at 5:17 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
>> I know that [with few exception] nobody cares about our Windows
>> support, but we finally have a working Open MPI software stack
>> there and this approach will definitively break our "Unix like"
>> friendliness on Windows.
>> As a temporary solution and until we can figure out how many people
>> use mpicc (and friends) on Windows, I suggest we keep around the
>> old wrapper compilers, together with the new shell scripts.
> Sounds reasonable. It would not be [too] difficult to have the build
> system do the following:
> - install the binaries to mpicc.exe (and friends)
> - install the shell scripts to mpicc.sh (or mpicc.pl or whatever
> suffix is appropriate for the scripting language that is used)
> - make sym links from $bindir/mpicc to $bindir/mpicc.sh (as the
> default), or $bindir/mpicc to $bindir/mpicc.exe if building or
> windows (or explicitly asked for via a configure --with kind of
> Hence, everyone will see "mpicc", but the back-end technology may be
>> On Oct 11, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Richard Graham wrote:
>>> What: Change the mpicc/mpicxx/mpif77/mpif90 from being binaries
>>> to being
>>> shell scripts
>>> Why: Our build environment assumes that wrapper compilers will use
>>> the same
>>> binary format that the Open MPI libraries do. In cross-compile
>>> the MPI wrapper compilers will run on the front-end and need to
>>> run on the
>>> front-end, and not the back-end. Jeff has suggested this as the
>>> way to build back-end libraries, and front-end wrapper-compilers.
>>> When: within the next several weeks (for the 1.3 release)
>>> Timeout: 10/19/2007
>>> devel mailing list
>> devel mailing list
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
> devel mailing list
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s