[petsc-dev] worthless information

[Jed Brown]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 15:32, Vijay S. Mahadevan <vijay.m at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been using them for several years and have found them to be
> powerful to extract expressions I care about. Most often, they are
> handy in the configuration process.
>

I was mostly kidding around. I use regexes sometimes, I just think they're
overused (abused to do things that a more "real" parser should be used for).
I don't consider truncating the version output to be a bad usage, though
there actually needs to be a far more involved detection of versions in
order to pass the correct command line options and to deal with quirks (e.g.
we have a workaround to activate -Wno-line-truncation for gfortran-4.5.x
because otherwise it gives lots of false positives).


>
> > FWIW, we care at least as much about the path of the compiler as its
> > version. Usually the first word of "mpicc -show" has this (provided
> spaces
> > in paths are escaped appropriately).
>
> I do not think mpicc -show gives the full path either.
>

Depends whether MPI was configured with a full path to the compiler.


> I've personally not used waf much on batch systems yet but have used
> to configure and build against several dependencies
> (petsc/slepc/libmesh/deal + other C++ libraries). I had to write a few
> utilities of my own on top of the original waf system to get this
> right though for a complex system like PETSc, there might be some
> additional needs.
>

I've looked at Waf a few times and I think it gets some things right, I just
think it's still pretty far from a viable alternative at this point.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20110830/b57f899e/attachment.html>