Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: > Anything is possible, if one based ./configure on "what could go wrong with > it" then ./configure couldn't really do anything.
When we talk about failure rates, we also have to include how expensive the failure mode is. If the cost is that everything goes through and maybe even some examples seem to run correctly, but subtle things (like MatElemental) cause data corruption, it's going to be a really painful debugging session. We won't be able to reproduce it locally because we link correctly. Really expensive both in human time and in reputation (depending on the user). Is it still better for configure to guess instead of asking the user? Maybe, though I hate to say it. The user might get -lstdc++ wrong as much or more than configure.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
