Re: [OMPI devel] [RFC] Upgrade to newer libtool 2.1 snapshot

[Jeff Squyres]

On Aug 6, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:


This fixes the problem for us (we stole it from a libtool mailing
list post from a long time ago).  If this could be applied to the
Libtool development trunk, that would be great...  :-)


The patch has two issues.  First a simple one, it should be
  sed -n '$p'
instead of `tail -n 1', for portability.  Second, and more  
importantly,
I remember to have tested the patch on some but not all compilers  
that I
know do pretend to be g++ at times (icpc, pathCC?, pgCC?).  I hope  
none
of them (nor g++ either) get the idea of splitting long output  
lines of

`$CXX -v' with backslash-newline.


FWIW, I've been regression testing OMPI with this patch against GNU,  
Intel 9.0, 9.1, pathscale, and the PGI compilers and it's been  
fine...  (of course, that doesn't imply anything about future  
behavior ;-) ).



Anyway, I'll put on my list throwing out another test round for the
patch.


Thanks!

--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems

Re: [OMPI devel] [RFC] Upgrade to newer libtool 2.1 snapshot

[Jeff Squyres]

On Aug 5, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:


WHAT: Upgrade to a newer Libtool 2.1 nightly snapshot (we are
currently using 1.2362 2007/01/23) for making OMPI tarballs.

WHY: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/982 is fixed by newer
Libtool snapshots (e.g., 1.2444 2007/04/10 is what I have installed
at Cisco).


Is it?  If so, then I would like to know why (config.log outputs for
both would be nice).  Could have been an Autoconf update instead.
Asking because I don't think the bug was consciously fixed in Libtool;
only a test was added to expose the issue.  I'll put it on my list of
things to look at.


While gathering data for this reply, I realized that you are exactly  
right: it's not the difference in the versions of Libtool that is the  
problem, it's the difference in versions of Autoconf (the OMPI v1.2  
nightly tarball uses AC 2.59, the OMPI trunk nightly tarball uses AC  
2.61, I use AC 2.61 in my development copies).


So I'll change my RFC and send it around again to upgrade the version  
of AC that we're using in the 1.2 tarball.  There may be some second- 
order effects of doing this; I'll chat with Brian about it (he  
watches this stuff much more closely than me).


FWIW, note that we are applying this patch to the generated  
aclocal.m4 (in all versions -- it appears to apply cleanly with a  
little fuzz on the exact line numbering):


--- aclocal.m4.old  2007-04-20 15:18:48.0 -0700
+++ aclocal.m4  2007-04-20 15:18:59.0 -0700
@@ -5311,7 +5311,7 @@
   # Commands to make compiler produce verbose output that lists
   # what "hidden" libraries, object files and flags are used when
   # linking a shared library.
-  output_verbose_link_cmd='$CC -shared $CFLAGS -v conftest. 
$objext 2>&1 | $GREP "\-L"'
+  output_verbose_link_cmd='$CC -shared $CFLAGS -v conftest. 
$objext 2>&1 | $GREP "\-L" | tail -n 1'


 else
   GXX=no

This fixes the problem for us (we stole it from a libtool mailing  
list post from a long time ago).  If this could be applied to the  
Libtool development trunk, that would be great...  :-)





Plus, it's a newer version, so it's better, right?  ;-)


FWIW, a patch applied today fixes a regression introduced on  
2007-05-08

and reported by Brian.

Cheers,
Ralf
___
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel



--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems

Re: [OMPI devel] [RFC] Upgrade to newer libtool 2.1 snapshot

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Jeff,

* Jeff Squyres wrote on Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 10:33:51PM CEST:
> WHAT: Upgrade to a newer Libtool 2.1 nightly snapshot (we are  
> currently using 1.2362 2007/01/23) for making OMPI tarballs.
> 
> WHY: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/982 is fixed by newer  
> Libtool snapshots (e.g., 1.2444 2007/04/10 is what I have installed  
> at Cisco).

Is it?  If so, then I would like to know why (config.log outputs for
both would be nice).  Could have been an Autoconf update instead.
Asking because I don't think the bug was consciously fixed in Libtool;
only a test was added to expose the issue.  I'll put it on my list of
things to look at.

> Plus, it's a newer version, so it's better, right?  ;-)

FWIW, a patch applied today fixes a regression introduced on 2007-05-08
and reported by Brian.

Cheers,
Ralf