From: K. Noel Belcourt (kbelco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-23 14:28:42
On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Alain Miniussi wrote:
> Well, it's all in the subject, beeing a pathscale user, I just
> downloaded the Milestone 12 and was surprised to see that the
> original pathscale.jam uses in various places mpicxx, mpif77
> and mpif90.
> Is there a reason for that ?
My mistake. I didn't mean to commit the mpi interfaces.
> I do have mpi on most of my
> computers but:
> - why should I use it when I don't need it ?
> - mpicxx is just one possible wrapper name (mpiCC is another
> possibility)
> - pathCC is not necessarly the default underlying compiler of mpicxx
>
> Also, the file mention pathf77 which does not exist (at least, not
> since
> psc 2.5, as far as I can see) f77 compliancy can be acheived with
> "path90 -ff77" instead.
>
> I did the changes manually and it seems to be working but I suspect
> I am overlooking something (I am new to boost build).
You're not overlooking anything that I can tell. I just wasn't very
thorough when I added the pathscale.jam file.
The attached patch replaces the mpi wrappers with the native
compilers and adds the -f77 option to the fortran 77 action. I'll
commit this patch if it looks reasonable to you.
Thanks for pointing out these problems.
-- Noel