On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
Ah -- I see an AC 2.63b release note:
** AC_REQUIRE now detects the case of an outer macro which first
expands
then later indirectly requires the same inner macro. Previously,
Yes, this is exactly what was happening.
The AC
Ah -- I see an AC 2.63b release note:
** AC_REQUIRE now detects the case of an outer macro which first expands
then later indirectly requires the same inner macro. Previously,
this case led to silent out-of-order expansion (bug present since
2.50); it now issues a syntax warning, and du
Indeed, r21759 solves the problem. ompi compile successfully on Mac OS
X with autoconf 2.64.
Thanks,
george.
On Aug 4, 2009, at 17:41 , Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:37 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
I used 2.64 for about a week on a bunch of machines. I never had
problems with
On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:37 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
I used 2.64 for about a week on a bunch of machines. I never had
problems with it before...
After checking it turned out that autoconf 2.64 was freshly installed
on my Mac, so this might be a problem with autoconf 2.64 and MAC OS
X ... I'll go b
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/21759 seems to make us
play well with AC 2.64. To be honest, I'm not sure why this change
works, but it does.
I'm going to ping Ralf W. and see if he's got any insight here...
On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
Checking
I used 2.64 for about a week on a bunch of machines. I never had
problems with it before...
After checking it turned out that autoconf 2.64 was freshly installed
on my Mac, so this might be a problem with autoconf 2.64 and MAC OS
X ... I'll go back to 2.63 until we figure out a way to solve
Checking this further, my C++ changes were r21755. Updating my SVN
tree to the commit before that (r21754), I see that AC 2.64 on this
tree issues these same warnings, but then configure works and the
build seems to proceed as normal.
Did you try AC 2.64 before today?
If not, I'd advise b
Doh. I tested with 2.63. I'll check out 2.64 right now...
On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:37 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
Not completely fixed. With the latest version of autoconf (2.64) I get
a bunch of warnings.
configure.ac:449: warning: AC_REQUIRE: `AC_PROG_CXX' was expanded
before it was required
..
Not completely fixed. With the latest version of autoconf (2.64) I get
a bunch of warnings.
configure.ac:449: warning: AC_REQUIRE: `AC_PROG_CXX' was expanded
before it was required
../../lib/autoconf/c.m4:671: AC_LANG_COMPILER(C++) is expanded from...
../../lib/autoconf/lang.m4:315: AC_LANG_
Should be fixed in https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/
21758. Sorry for the interruption...
On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Doh!
I committed the "we don't need no stinkin' C++ compiler" changes
this morning after a bunch of testing, but I totally neglected to
Doh!
I committed the "we don't need no stinkin' C++ compiler" changes this
morning after a bunch of testing, but I totally neglected to test the
case *with* a C++ compiler. :-(
So the trunk is borked at the moment; I'm working on a fix...
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
>From my perspective, the assumption that the low-level is reliable is
>completely
consistent with the assumptions that went into the ob1 design, so I don't see
changes
you may propose as a problem in principal.
Thanks a lot for the clarification,
Rich
On 8/3/09 9:39 AM, "Mouhamed Gueye" wr
I'll be there, however for EPVMMPI only, i.e. I arrive on Sunday.
Edgar
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Who's going to Helsinki?
Does anyone want to meet up for some sight-seeing and/or have a devel
meeting? I know that some of our European developers are not attending,
but if we have a day-long devel m
Absolutely correct -- fixed -- thanks!
On Aug 4, 2009, at 4:45 AM, Arthur Huillet wrote:
Hi,
Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Glad it was helpful! Feel free to let us know if there's anything
> else that would be helpful there -- it's easy enough to give you
write
> access to the wiki.
Just a small t
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Who's going to Helsinki?
Does anyone want to meet up for some sight-seeing and/or have a devel
meeting? I know that some of our European developers are not
attending, but if we have a day-long devel meeting, perhaps they might
be motivated...?
I will be attending.
--t
On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
I bet you're refering to Euro PVM MPI 09 ?
Heh -- sorry, I should have been more clear. :-) Yes, I was
referring to both Euro PVM/MPI and the Forum meeting on W-F in the
previous week. I'm actually *only* attending the Forum meeting
Hi Jeff,
I bet you're refering to Euro PVM MPI 09 ?
If this is what you're refering to, I should attend as usual. And of
course, I'm very interested in joining a devel meeting :)
Sylvain
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Who's going to Helsinki?
Does anyone want to meet up for some
Who's going to Helsinki?
Does anyone want to meet up for some sight-seeing and/or have a devel
meeting? I know that some of our European developers are not
attending, but if we have a day-long devel meeting, perhaps they might
be motivated...?
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
Rolf/Mouhamed
Could you get together off-list to discuss the different approaches
and see if/where there is common ground. It would be nice to see an
integrated solution - personally, I would rather not see two
orthogonal approaches unless they can be cleanly separated. Much
better if the
Hi,
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Glad it was helpful! Feel free to let us know if there's anything
else that would be helpful there -- it's easy enough to give you write
access to the wiki.
Just a small thing on the CreateComponent page :
"Create a directory with the component name in /mca/foo/. For
20 matches
Mail list logo
