Thanks, Jeff! And again no need to worry about the .7 release from
our point of view. The patched version has been accepted in the
standard Debian packages.
Take care,
Jeff Squyres <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On 10 Dec 2001, Camm Maguire wrote:
>
> > Greetings! The gcc suite >=3.0 requires linking in libstdc++ when
> > linking c++ objects. When the linker is called by the name 'c++' or
> > equiv., this happens automatically, just as libg2c.a is added when the
> > linker is invoked via f77/g77. Earlier gcc suites did not require the
> > -lstdc++, apparently. In any case, the wrapper compilers handle c++
> > fine, as they invoke c++, but for fortran and C they add -llammpi++ to
> > the command line, without the implicit -lstdc++, and this fails.
>
> Erf. We didn't anticipate that.
>
> > One easy solution is to just add -lstdc++ to LAM_SYSLIBS, or some
> > such. This is a bit ugly though for distributions, such as Debian,
> > which will have different default compilers on different
> > architectures. Surely we don't want the arbitrary overhead of
> > requiring everyone who compiles any mpi program in any language to
> > link in lammpi++, libstdc++, and have a working c++ setup, etc.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > For hcc, there is a somewhat simple patch:
> >
> > [patch snipped]
> >
> > This assumes that one never wants to use gcc to link when one's code
> > has c++, which really makes sense. Likewise, the block in hf77.c
> > which adds in -llammpi++ can safely be commented out, to my
> > understanding. As the comment preceding it says, its only there for
> > the obscure case of calling c++ code from fortran. I really don't
> > even know if this is possible! In any case, I've put these two fixes
> > in the Debian package to close a bug as a temporary measure. I'd be
> > happy to implement whatever you guys think best.
>
> Your analysis is right on the money -- you have to use a C++ compiler to
> link C++ programs. Hence, it doesn't make sense to add the C++ bindings
> library when linkinig with mpicc or mpif77.
>
> Must have been a mental lapse when we did that... or perhaps a bit of
> confusion because hcc is schitzofrenic in that it is actually "mpicc" and
> "mpiCC". That is, hcc checks a special environment variable to see if it
> should do C++ things -- don't ask). There's a good chunk of logic in
> hcc.c that deals with this issue. hcc used to be a fairly simple thing,
> but maybe it's time that we separated mpiCC off into its own executable to
> avoid this kind of confusion... hmm...
>
> I'll apply your patch to the CVS head; thanks!
>
> I'd prefer not to do another 6.5.x release if possible; we're trying to
> kill off the 6.5 line. If the bug list grows too long, we'll do a 6.5.7,
> but I'd like to avoid it if possible.
>
> {+} Jeff Squyres
> {+} jsquyres_at_[hidden]
> {+} http://www.lam-mpi.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> This list is archived at http://www.lam-mpi.org/MailArchives/lam/
>
>
--
Camm Maguire camm_at_[hidden]
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
_______________________________________________
This list is archived at http://www.lam-mpi.org/MailArchives/lam/
|
