[petsc-dev] BuildSystem: PCC=mpicc, CXX and FC

[Satish Balay]

I don't remember previous conversation regarding it. However wrt
python I strongly felt the python used by configure should be used by
'full path' in generated scripts. [for eg check: reconfigure.py]

I'm fine with using full paths for default searches done by configure
[cc,mpicc etc from PATH]. However if user provides 'cc=gcc' - this
should not be expanded to full PATH automatically by configure..

Satish

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Barry Smith wrote:

> 
> On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> 
> > Do we really want the full path to all compilers? We discussed this before and did not
> > do it. Satish, do you remember why?
> 
>   With the full path I like the fact that the compiler choices are set at at ./configure time and won't mysteriously change (and result in failure) later if someone changes their path or installs a new MPI into the path.
> 
>   I do not know why you opted not to always have the full path.
> > 
> >    Matt
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 14 September 2010 22:26, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:24 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 14 September 2010 21:55, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> 1) If mpicc is in $PATH, then petscvariables will get PCC=mpicc.
> > >>>> Perhaps it should get the full path instead?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2) I think CXX and FC variables should be renames to PCXX and PFC. The
> > >>>> former names can easily conflict with CXX and FC defined in user
> > >>>> makefiles for use with non-MPI sources.
> > >>>
> > >>>   Then we should also get rid of CC
> > >>>
> > >>>    Essentially you are saying we should remove all "traditional" use of these variables from our makefiles? I agree doing that might be a good idea. But doesn't it contradict your attempt to try hard to conform to standard usage for things?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, I need a clarification: Could you tell me why PETSc makefiles
> > >> uses PCC instead of the "traditional"  CC? Is it just because PCC
> > >> could be CC or CXX depending on --with-c-language?
> > >
> > >   Yes that is one reason and may be the only reason.
> > >
> > 
> > In such case, forget my comments, except for the part of setting
> > PCC=/path/to/mpicc (and perhaps the same for CC, CXX, FC if they point
> > to MPI compiler wrappers). What do you think about this? Please note
> > I'm not objecting the current status, just asking about the full path
> > alternative.
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Lisandro Dalcin
> > ---------------
> > CIMEC (INTEC/CONICET-UNL)
> > Predio CONICET-Santa Fe
> > Colectora RN 168 Km 472, Paraje El Pozo
> > Tel: +54-342-4511594 (ext 1011)
> > Tel/Fax: +54-342-4511169
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.
> > -- Norbert Wiener
> 
>