On 04/07/2011 08:36 AM, Paul Kapinos wrote:
Interesting. I've looked at some of my x86, Studio, linux builds of
OMPI 1.5 branch and I see the correct configure results for ceil
that correctly identify the need for -lm. Your's definitely does
not come up with the right answer. Are you using the "official"
ompi 1.5.3 tarball?
so, the attached ceil.c example file
*can* be compiled by "CC" (the Studio C++ compiler), but
*cannot* be compiled using "cc" (the Studio C compiler).
Did you try to link in the math library -lm? When I did this
your test program worked for me and that actually is the first
test that the configure does.
$ CC ceil.c
$ cc ceil.c
See above, it actually is right when you link in the math lib.
5. Looking into configure.log and searching on `ceil' results:
there was a check for the availability of `ceil' for the C
compiler (see config.log.ceil). This check says `ceil' is
*available* for the "cc" Compiler, which is *wrong*, cf. (4).
Thankt for the tipp! Yes, if using -lm so the Studio C compiler
"cc" works also fine for ceil.c:
$ cc ceil.c -lm
So, is there an error in the configure
stage? Or either the checks in config.log.ceil does not rely
on the avilability of the `ceil' funcion in the C compiler?
It looks to me like the lbat configure test is not linking in
the math lib.
Yes, the is no -lm in configure:84213 line.
Note the cheks for ceil again, config.log.ceil. As far as I
unterstood these logs, the checks for ceil and for the need of -lm
deliver wrong results:
configure:55000: checking if we need -lm for ceil
configure:55104: result: no
configure:55115: checking for ceil
configure:55115: result: yes
So, configure assumes "ceil" is available for the "cc" compiler
without the need for -lm flag - and this is *wrong*, "cc" need
It seem for me to be an configure issue.
Terry D. Dontje | Principal Software Engineer
Engineering | +1.781.442.2631
Oracle - Performance
95 Network Drive,
Burlington, MA 01803