Did we build 1.1 branch with sock on atlantis ?
The build on atlantis fails, configure and make
outputs are in atlantis:/sandbox/chan/mpich_work/build.
If this is known, ignore this then.
A.Chan
----- "mpich2" <mpich2-maint(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
> Reporter: Eugene Loh <Eugene.Loh(a)Sun.COM> | Owner:
> Type: bug | Status: closed
> Priority: major | Milestone:
> Component: mpich2 | Resolution: fixed
> Keywords: |
> ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
>
>
> Comment (by Anthony Chan):
>
> I misunderstood your reply as well.
> Since we don't have access to any SUN's C compiler
> on AMD Linux box, Can you resend your configure and make
> outputs that were obtained on /tmp ? Since SUN's C compiler
> seems to be a stricter C compiler, some files may not be
> compiled ....
>
> Thanks,
> A.Chan
>
> ----- "mpich2" <mpich2-maint(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
> > Reporter: Eugene Loh <Eugene.Loh(a)Sun.COM> | Owner:
> > Type: bug | Status:
> closed
> > Priority: major | Milestone:
> > Component: mpich2 | Resolution:
> fixed
> > Keywords: |
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Comment (by Eugene Loh):
> >
> > mpich2 wrote:
> >
> > >Comment (by Rajeev Thakur):
> > >
> > > I thought you said that when you compiled on /tmp it worked.
> > >
> > >
> > No. You observed that the timestamps were all whacked up and
> > suggested
> > some sync'ed file system like /tmp. My point was that building
> on
> > /tmp
> > resolved the weird timestamp warnings, but they were never the
> point
> > of
> > my report. Those were just warnings that you observed as you
> looked
> > through the log file.
> >
> > > What exactly doesn't work right now?
> > >
> > >
> > The same issue as in the original report. Namely, those
> "multiple
> > definition" messages at the very end of the log file that
> indicated
> > that
> > the cpi.c example did not build.
> >
> > I have this bad habit of repeating myself, but here goes.
> >
> > I tried to "./configure; make". At the very end, the "make"
> tried
> > to
> > build the cpi.c example. It failed with those "multiple
> definition"
> > messages, which were the subject of my problem report and the
> > subject
> > heading of this e-mail thread.
> >
> > You (mpich2-maint) observed that there were many "future
> timestamp"
> > warnings in the log and suggested building on a file system
> synced
> > with
> > the build node. I did so. That resolved the "future timestamp"
> > messages but not the motivating problem ("multiple definition"
> and
> > cpi.c
> > not building).
> >
> > Thanks for any further help. I'm asking around on other aliases
> and
> > hope to get resolution from any of these resources.
> >
> > --
> > Ticket URL:
> > <https://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/mpich2/ticket/172#comment:>
>
> --
> Ticket URL:
> <https://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/mpich2/ticket/172#comment:>
