This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:26 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargrove_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> OMPI's configure says pgi-8.0 and pgi-9.0 are "good".
> But pgi-10.0 is rejected without even subjecting it to the tests.
> This situation (8.0 and 9.0 "better" than 10.0) sounds fishy to me.
Can you send the output from pgi-10? We don't reject based on compiler name/version -- it should be all behavior-based checks...
> You didn't miss anything because I was focused on the idea that mpi_f08 shouldn't even have been attempted on these compilers. See below for the pgi-9.0 error messages. 8.0 was similar but output has been lost (scratch f/s expiry).
This was enough for me to figure out what I think the issue is.
I was doing one BIND(C) configure test -- it looks like I need to do some additional variations of the BIND(C) test. With these additional tests, I'll bet that we'll rule that we won't build the mpi_f08 module with pgi 8/9.
I should have something checked into the trunk soon (for tonight's tarball). Let's see how that does before we bring it over to v1.7 -- we might need to iterate once or twice before getting it right.
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/