Just checking, do I have something to try/do? Mark On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >
