On 14 September 2010 22:26, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:24 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > >> On 14 September 2010 21:55, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: >>> >>>> 1) If mpicc is in $PATH, then petscvariables will get PCC=mpicc. >>>> Perhaps it should get the full path instead? >>>> >>>> 2) I think CXX and FC variables should be renames to PCXX and PFC. The >>>> former names can easily conflict with CXX and FC defined in user >>>> makefiles for use with non-MPI sources. >>> >>> ? Then we should also get rid of CC >>> >>> ? ?Essentially you are saying we should remove all "traditional" use of >>> these variables from our makefiles? I agree doing that might be a good >>> idea. But doesn't it contradict your attempt to try hard to conform to >>> standard usage for things? >>> >> >> Sorry, I need a clarification: Could you tell me why PETSc makefiles >> uses PCC instead of the "traditional" ?CC? Is it just because PCC >> could be CC or CXX depending on --with-c-language? > > ? Yes that is one reason and may be the only reason. >
In such case, forget my comments, except for the part of setting PCC=/path/to/mpicc (and perhaps the same for CC, CXX, FC if they point to MPI compiler wrappers). What do you think about this? Please note I'm not objecting the current status, just asking about the full path alternative. -- Lisandro Dalcin --------------- CIMEC (INTEC/CONICET-UNL) Predio CONICET-Santa Fe Colectora RN 168 Km 472, Paraje El Pozo Tel: +54-342-4511594 (ext 1011) Tel/Fax: +54-342-4511169
