[petsc-dev] DESTDIR

Satish Balay balay at mcs.anl.gov
Fri Apr 23 10:32:56 CDT 2010

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:04:33 -0500, Dmitry Karpeev <karpeev at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >> The users definitely have to decide in the end for themselves,
> >> but they also need to know how the libraries they are about to link against
> >> were compiled, I think.  I prefer to give the users more information and then
> >> let them decide whether to throw it out, rather than give them too little
> >> (I hate being in that position, I know that much).
> >
> > I think we're agreeing, I just don't want them to have to parse a
> > returned command line to isolate parts that they would like separately.
> I agree.  Better to give them both the whole (the command line) and
> the pieces (compiler, flags, etc).

there are different ways of doing it:

1. 'mpicc -show'

2. pkgconfig as Jed mentioned

3. makefiles - as currently implemented by PETSc. 'make getincludes'

So we already have a mechanism that provides the relavent
info. Perhaps we need to add more 'make targets' to get the equivalent
of some of this stuff:

  CC ?= `petsc-config --c-compiler`
  CFLAGS += `petsc-config --includes`
  LDFLAGS += `petsc-config --libs --shared --no-rpath`

Its possible that alternative mechanisms might be useful. But if its
not pkgconfig or petsccc [which some folks might expect] perhaps the
current makefile mechanism is good enough - and a new one is not


More information about the petsc-dev mailing list