On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 15:32, Vijay S. Mahadevan <vijay.m at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been using them for several years and have found them to be > powerful to extract expressions I care about. Most often, they are > handy in the configuration process. > I was mostly kidding around. I use regexes sometimes, I just think they're overused (abused to do things that a more "real" parser should be used for). I don't consider truncating the version output to be a bad usage, though there actually needs to be a far more involved detection of versions in order to pass the correct command line options and to deal with quirks (e.g. we have a workaround to activate -Wno-line-truncation for gfortran-4.5.x because otherwise it gives lots of false positives). > > > FWIW, we care at least as much about the path of the compiler as its > > version. Usually the first word of "mpicc -show" has this (provided > spaces > > in paths are escaped appropriately). > > I do not think mpicc -show gives the full path either. > Depends whether MPI was configured with a full path to the compiler. > I've personally not used waf much on batch systems yet but have used > to configure and build against several dependencies > (petsc/slepc/libmesh/deal + other C++ libraries). I had to write a few > utilities of my own on top of the original waf system to get this > right though for a complex system like PETSc, there might be some > additional needs. > I've looked at Waf a few times and I think it gets some things right, I just think it's still pretty far from a viable alternative at this point. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110830/b57f899e/attachment.html>
