Switching your default C++ compilation type in response to one (of very many) of your dependent libs changing theirs
seems odd, even for an otherwise-great one. C++11 has some great stuff, but just how critical is it?
- tim
On 10/03/2013 04:02 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
Tim Tautges <[email protected]> writes:
Lots of missing spaces for XL.
Fortunately, the LLVM backend is competitive with XL on performance and
is standards-compliant. With any luck, IBM will stop shipping XL.
What about Cray, can't remember the compiler flavor they use.
Cray has their own compiler, but it's not the default on any of their
machines.
But anyway, surely you're not expecting your users to install their
own GCC or LLVM, right?
I've seen brand-new near-petascale machines installed with 5+ year old
software stacks. If the people running the facility are stuck in the
stone age, then yes, users can install a contemporary compiler. Or the
facility can provide a recent version.
(Yes, it's a serious impediment and lack of cross-vendor ABI
compatibility often means that it's not even an option. People jump
through far greater hoops, so it depends whether you are targeting the
average or the extreme.)
--
================================================================
"You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is
steadfast, because he trusts in you." Isaiah 26:3
Tim Tautges Argonne National Laboratory
([email protected]) (telecommuting from UW-Madison)
phone (gvoice): (608) 354-1459 1500 Engineering Dr.
fax: (608) 263-4499 Madison, WI 53706
