I don't have a dog in this, but I will say that we have found supporting
to be much easier with cmake. If that is not an issue, then autotools is
is just fine too. We do both and are happy with either.
Yes, one must build cmake to use it. Does not seem to be a critical
issue to me if one wants to support Windows, as you have to install
something (e.g., cygwin) to use autotools.
We looked into cmake for openmpi a while ago, but only because we wondered
whether there was much interest in supporting Windows. There wasn't.
As to compiler support, we build our codes on all of
Clang, OS X native (which is variants of GNU and Clang),
PGI, Intel, Cray, Microsoft Visual, IBM BlueGene (xl).
Have not tried Absoft, HP-UX, Oracle Solaris (Linux and Solaris), Tru64.
Only rarely are we seeing the last three OS's anymore. No requests.
But I am confident cmake could do these.
On 5/16/2014 3:00 PM, Martin Siegert wrote:
> +1 even if cmake would make life easier for the developpers, you may
> want to consider those sysadmins/users who actually need to compile
> and install the software. And for those cmake is a nightmare. Everytime
> I run into a software package that uses cmake it makes me cringe.
> gromacs is the perfect example - it has become orders of magnitudes
> more complicated to compile just because it now uses cmake. I still
> have not succeeded cross compiling (compiling on a machine with a
> different processor than the code will later run on) gromacs. This was
> trivial before they switched to cmake.
> Another example: want to add RPATH to the executables/libraries?
> Just set LDFLAGS='-Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/xyz/lib64' with autotools.
> With cmake? Really complicated.
> Please, just say no.
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 08:33:15PM +0000, Hjelm, Nathan T wrote:
>> +1 the bootstrapping issue is 50% of the reason I will never use CMake for any production code.
>> vygr:~ hjelmn$ type -p cmake
>> vygr:~ hjelmn$
>> Nada, zilch, nothing on standard OS X install. I do not want to put an extra requirement on my users. Nor do I want something as simple-minded as CMake. autotools works great for me.
>> From: users [users-bounces_at_[hidden]] on behalf of Ralph Castain [rhc_at_[hidden]]
>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 2:07 PM
>> To: Open MPI Users
>> Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support
>> On May 16, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Fabricio Cannini <fcannini_at_[hidden]<mailto:fcannini_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>> Em 16-05-2014 10:06, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) escreveu:
>> On May 15, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Fabricio Cannini <fcannini_at_[hidden]<mailto:fcannini_at_[hidden]>>
>> Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake
>> work - all we are saying is that (a) CMake has issues too, just
>> like autotools, and (b) we have yet to see a compelling reason to
>> undertake the transition...which would have to be a *very*
>> compelling one.
>> I was simply agreeing with Maxime about why it could work. ;)
>> But if you and the other devels are fine with it, i'm fine too.
>> FWIW, simply for my own curiosity's sake, if someone could confirm
>> deny whether cmake:
>> 1. Supports the following compiler suites: GNU (that's a given, I
>> assume), Clang, OS X native (which is variants of GNU and Clang),
>> Absoft, PGI, Intel, Cray, HP-UX, Oracle Solaris (Linux and Solaris),
>> Tru64, Microsoft Visual, IBM BlueGene (I think that's gcc, but am
>> not entirely sure). (some of these matter mainly to hwloc, not
>> necessarily OMPI)
>> Not 100% confirmed, but this is good evidence that cmake does indeed supports all these suites. See the file list:
>> 2. Bootstrap a tarball such that an end user does not need to have
>> cmake installed.
>> What do you mean by 'bootstrapping a tarball' ?
>> If someone doesn't have cmake installed and downloads a tarball that was built from a CMake-based project, can they configure/build that tarball? Or do they have to install cmake first?
> users mailing list