Chorus:
"I'm talkin OPD... yeah you know me"
Ok, that was pretty bad. ;-)
Jeremy
At 07:18 PM 1/27/2003 -0500, Brian W. Barrett wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Sean Dague wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 06:02:51PM -0600, Jason B. wrote:
> > Per Jeff's suggestion, I tried recompiling. While I could not successfully
> > recompile mpich, I could recompile lam and I was able to run the lam test
> > successfully. Maybe we should offer two versions of some of these
> > libraries... one using 2.9x and one using 3.x? OTOH, newer distros have
> > compat- type packages which provide the older binaries and libraries (and
> > headers, etc.). Any suggestions on what we should do?
>
> Have you tried compiling MPICH against the lsb libraries? Try installing
> the lsbdev package on RH 8.0 and check out its docs.
What was the error message for MPICH? Was it a library problem, or
something with GCC 3.2 and MPICH?
Anyway, back to the original problem - we pretty much have to ship two
versions of the MPI implementations. The ABI for C++ changed so
drastically between 2.95 and 3.{0,1,2} that you have to compile the entire
C++ stack with the same compiler. Suckage, but reportedly the GCC group
is going to stabalize the ABI for a while... I don't believe it, of
course :).
Brian
--
Brian Barrett
LAM/MPI developer and all around nice guy
Have a LAM/MPI day: http://www.lam-mpi.org/
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Oscar-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
