I don't remember previous conversation regarding it. However wrt python I strongly felt the python used by configure should be used by 'full path' in generated scripts. [for eg check: reconfigure.py]
I'm fine with using full paths for default searches done by configure [cc,mpicc etc from PATH]. However if user provides 'cc=gcc' - this should not be expanded to full PATH automatically by configure.. Satish On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Barry Smith wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > Do we really want the full path to all compilers? We discussed this before > > and did not > > do it. Satish, do you remember why? > > With the full path I like the fact that the compiler choices are set at at > ./configure time and won't mysteriously change (and result in failure) later > if someone changes their path or installs a new MPI into the path. > > I do not know why you opted not to always have the full path. > > > > Matt > > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com> > > wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their > > experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their > > experiments lead. > > -- Norbert Wiener > >
