<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jed Brown <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov" target="_blank">jedbrown@mcs.anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">No, I have always been precise about including exactly what is in the makefile. Matt has refused to do this with builder, thus it sometimes produces different results.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I am not building with Builder anymore (just running tests), so we can switch the Builder build to make.</div><div><br></div><div> Matt</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
Satish Balay <<a href="mailto:balay@mcs.anl.gov">balay@mcs.anl.gov</a>> wrote:<br>
>On Wed, 27 Nov 2013, Jed Brown wrote:<br>
><br>
>> However, that file should never have been compiled because it was not<br>
>> listed in the makefile. Where did you observe the warnings above?<br>
><br>
>Doesn't the listing in 'makefile' affect only all-legacy - whereas<br>
>cmake/gmake builds grab all files and compile them?<br>
><br>
>Satish<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>
-- Norbert Wiener
</div></div>