On May 15, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Maxime Boissonneault <maxime.boissonneault_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Le 2014-05-15 18:27, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) a écrit :
>> On May 15, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Fabricio Cannini <fcannini_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Alright, but now I'm curious as to why you decided against it.
>>> Could please elaborate on it a bit ?
>> OMPI has a long, deep history with the GNU Autotools. It's a very long, complicated story, but the high points are:
>> 1. The GNU Autotools community has given us very good support over the years.
>> 2. The GNU Autotools support all compilers that we want to support, including shared library support (others did not, back in 2004 when we started OMPI).
>> 3. The GNU Autotools can fully bootstrap a tarball such that the end user does not need to have the GNU Autotools installed to build an OMPI tarball.
> You mean some people do NOT have GNU Autotools ? :P
Actually, yes - Cray doesn't install them.
> Jokes aside, CMake has certainly matured enough for point #2 and is used by very big projects (KDE for example). Not sure about point #3 though. I am wondering though, how do you handle Windows with OpenMPI and GNU Autotools ? I know CMake is famous for being cross-plateform (that's what the C means) and can generate builds for Windows, Visual Studio and such.
The Windows integration actually involved adding CMake support within OMPI. It was truly an ugly effort that caused the student who took it on a great deal of pain. Ultimately, that support was scrapped when the student graduated and nobody was willing to maintain it.
> In any case, I do not see any need to change from one toolchain to another, although I have seen many projects providing both and that did not seem to be too much of a hassle. It's still probably more work than what you want to get into though.
Yeah, as Jeff indicated, without a burning justification, it just doesn't seem worth it.
> users mailing list