On Jun 17, 2010, at 13:59, Stephen Langer wrote: > > On Jun 17, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> >> On Jun 16, 2010, at 19:31, Stephen Langer wrote: >> >>> Therefore it's a serious mistake for a packaging system to assume that it's >>> ok to enable openmp in libraries. A quick solution would be to provide >>> both openmp and no-openmp variants, which would make users choose between >>> fast stand-alone ImageMagick programs and libraries that can be linked by >>> threaded apps. >> >> We don't need two variants; we only need one variant, "openmp", which the >> user can either enable or disable. > > That's what I meant. I guess I was using the word "variant" in a > nontechnical sense. > >> It just remains a question as to whether the variant should be enabled by >> default or not. What I'm hearing is that we should disable it by default. > > That would break the least amount of code.
Ok, I'll do that. >>> A better solution might be for the openmp and non-openmp versions of the >>> libraries to have different names, so that both could be installed on the >>> same system. >> >> Ugh. That sounds nasty. > > I agree. Can we get ImageMagick to allow openMP to be enabled or disabled at > run time? That would also solve the problem. Such a switch doesn't exist > at the moment, as far as I can tell. Then you should suggest that to the developers of ImageMagick. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users