At 06:23 AM 12/5/2004, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>One minor clarification -- LAM does not use any GCC / glibc extensions
>that I am aware of. LAM uses standard libc calls (e.g., printf) that are
>available on all POSIX platforms. There's a bunch of platform-specific
>code in LAM, of course (i.e., what the configure script finds), but I
>don't *think* that there are any glibc extensions in there...?
>
>My limited understanding of how the intel compilers work was that they did
>not implement all of libc (i.e., why re-implement the wheel?) and instead
>relied on the back-end libc for at least some of its functionality (e.g.,
>some of the non-performance-critical functions).
>
>That may or may not be correct. :-)
I believe that is correct, and hope that I didn't imply otherwise. The
functions where we are getting link warnings in the ifort link are calls
which lam (and also mpich) make directly to libc.
Tim Prince
|
