I’ll bet we get a rash of complaints about this behavior…at the very least, let’s not do it if somebody deliberately asks for a debug build. I think people generally hate getting annoying warnings just because a few people do something wrong.
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 8:27 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet <gil...@rist.or.jp> wrote: > > be "me-friendly" :-) > i explicitly configure with --enable-debug --enable-picky from git, so i > (hopefully) know what i am doing and do not want any warning. > > iirc, cisco mtt does that too, and i am not sure you would want a warning > and/or update your mtt config. > > this is not a strong opinion, and i am fine with setting a parameter (i will > likely soon forget i set that) in a config file. > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > On 3/2/2016 1:21 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:17 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet <gil...@rist.or.jp> wrote: >>> In this case, should we only display the warning if debug build was >>> implicit ? >>> for example, ./configure from git would display the warning (implicit >>> debug), >>> but ./configure --enable-debug would not (explicit debug), regardless we >>> built from git or a tarball >> We don't currently distinguish between these two cases. >> >> What is the rationale for only warning on implicit debug builds? >> > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2016/03/18656.php
