On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:03 PM, Satish Balay wrote: > 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..
How come? Barry > > 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 >> >> >
