Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2003, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
>
>
>>currently I am `autoconfiguring' a program
>>involving LAM and some GNU librairies (maily GSL and GTS).
>>I guess that I have to put the mpic{c,++} wrapper at the proper place.
>
>
> That would probably be best.
>
>
>>On the other hand, LAM can be seen as a library: so a
>>`{glib,gsl,gts}-config' like tool, `lam-config', for LAM and its friend
>>`aclocal/lam.m4' are envisagle and can replace the wrapper. Then the
>>autoconfiguration may more easy.
>>
>>Are exist such tools ?
>
>
> No.
>
>
>>If not, do you plan to implement them ?
>
>
> Since we have the wrapper compilers, and since the wrapper compilers can
> be arbitrarily layered, we've never really seen the need to have such
> tools. Are there cases that are not addressed by using the wrapper
> compilers?
>
> I ask because if the main issue is just having mpicc (etc.) in your path,
> then it sounds like exactly the same issue was putting lam-config in your
> path. Is there something different?
>
This is not the main issue:
The aim is to write `good' Makefile.am files
(the ones presents in LAM70b8/examples/
short cut the regular behaviour
by using the `COMPILE' facility)
and good `configure.{ac,in}' files
for packages involving LAM/MPI
among other stuff.
|
