On Thursday 10 October 2013 14:39:24 Alf Birger Rustad wrote: > Generally speaking, I support dynamic linking where libs are available > (which includes blas and lapack). Simply because I believe it is less error > prone since it is the standard modulo of operandi for GNU/Linux > distributions (I do agree on that Arne Morten).
I agree insofar that it is advisable to use dynamic linking for packages, as it is much easier to fix a bug in a library once instead of in hundreds of depending packages. For software like OPM which the user compiles himself anyway (if not uses packages and thus packaged dependencies like UMFPACK are not a problem and the package maintainer is supposed to make sure that the software works correctly), it makes sense to default to static linking to avoid dependency issues and take advantage of the 1% performance improvement... > We encountered a similar > situation a while back on a seismic application where it turned out that > statically linking of atlas and cblas was broken on Debian. Ref. > https://github.com/CRAVA/crava/pull/22 Of course, CMake should test this for each library individually before using it... cheers Andreas -- A programmer had a problem. He thought to himself, "I know, I'll solve it with threads!". has Now problems. two he -- Davidlohr Bue
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
