Hello Larry, Jeff, I'm one of the Libtool developers. I'm happy to take things over to the Libtool source tree and help get them incorporated.
Jeff, any chance you could give me a heads-up when all of them are incorporated in one of the OpenMPI branches so I can pick them up from there? Thanks, Ralf * Larry Baker wrote on Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:15:05PM CEST: > Without the 1.4.2 fix in configure to correctly parse the PGI > version no. (the same fix you have in 1.5rc5), I'm pretty sure the > make of 1.4.2 fails for PGI 10.x. Also, I think the inline assembly > of atomic instructions might not be correct for the C++ version of > the library without the other fix in configure to hard-code > disabling that feature for PGI. > > I don't know anything about Libtool, like where it comes from, which > pieces of OpenMPI come from Libtool, and, probably more significant, > how those pieces might have been modified when they were > incorporated into OpenMPI. The fixes to configure and libtool.m4 > that I sent seem to already be well known. (They were passed on to > me when I fixed them while installing netCDF.) I'm happy to report > bugs and fixes to the developers of the code I use. I really have > to leave it up to them to decide whether to pass them on to their > upstream providers. > > Larry Baker > US Geological Survey > 650-329-5608 > ba...@usgs.gov > > On Aug 20, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > > >On Aug 17, 2010, at 9:50 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > >>>I patched OpenMPI 1.4.2 to fix some problems/warnings when using the > >>>PGI compilers. > >> > >>FWIW, if there are fixes suitable for upstream Libtool in your > >>changes, > >>we would be glad if you could send them as bug reports or even > >>'diff -u' > >>patches to the bug-libtool at gnu.org list. Line numbers don't help > >>because they change too quickly, and issues might have been > >>fixed in the > >>git version of Libtool already. > > > >Yes, that would be great -- would you mind submitting these > >upstream to Libtool? We try to do that when I fix something so > >that it's there for us without patching in future releases. > > > >Thanks for the v1.4 fixes! But given that you also submitted them > >for v1.5, since none of them are drastic correctness issues, we > >might well opt to only fix them in the v1.5 series.
