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 option)
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