On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Dmitry Karpeev wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:04:33 -0500, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> > > wrote: > >> The users definitely have to decide in the end for themselves, > >> but they also need to know how the libraries they are about to link against > >> were compiled, I think. ?I prefer to give the users more information and > >> then > >> let them decide whether to throw it out, rather than give them too little > >> (I hate being in that position, I know that much). > > > > I think we're agreeing, I just don't want them to have to parse a > > returned command line to isolate parts that they would like separately. > > I agree. Better to give them both the whole (the command line) and > the pieces (compiler, flags, etc).
there are different ways of doing it: 1. 'mpicc -show' 2. pkgconfig as Jed mentioned 3. makefiles - as currently implemented by PETSc. 'make getincludes' So we already have a mechanism that provides the relavent info. Perhaps we need to add more 'make targets' to get the equivalent of some of this stuff: >> CC ?= `petsc-config --c-compiler` CFLAGS += `petsc-config --includes` LDFLAGS += `petsc-config --libs --shared --no-rpath` << Its possible that alternative mechanisms might be useful. But if its not pkgconfig or petsccc [which some folks might expect] perhaps the current makefile mechanism is good enough - and a new one is not needed? Satish
