This seems fine. Bill William Gropp Director, Parallel Computing Institute Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Thomas M. Siebel Chair in Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:28 AM, Pavan Balaji wrote:
OK. I’ll run this by BillG as well. I’ve created a ticket:
https://trac.mpich.org/projects/mpich/ticket/1986
It’s a little more complicated than I initially thought (it’s not a simple symbolic link). So we’ll not do this for 3.1, which we are in the process of finalizing.
— Pavan
On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <[email protected]> wrote:
On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Pavan Balaji <[email protected]> wrote:
Will the following tradeoff be acceptable to everyone?
* We allow users to specify a Fortran compiler using “FC” and “FCFLAGS”. This will result in a wrapper called “mpifort”.
* We’ll maintain mpif90 as a symbolic link to mpifort for backward compatibility.
* If no separate F77 compiler is specified, we’ll use FC as the F77 compiler as well. In this case, mpif77 will be a symbolic link to mpifort.
* But users have the ability to provide a separate F77 compiler, in which case a new mpif77 is created.
This way, we can still support compilers that have a different F77 compiler. But for most compilers there’ll be a single mpifort (with mpif90 and mpif77 symbolic links for backward compatibility for some time).
That sounds perfect.
-- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] To manage subscription options or unsubscribe: https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss