[MITgcm-devel] solasrv4 testing

[Martin Losch]

This seems to be solved, right? Should I do anything like change the opt file for solasrv?

M.

On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:

> Martin,
> 
> I think I understand the problem:
> The optfile "sunos_i86pc_f95" specify CFLAGS but not CC,
> and "look_for_C_compilers" does not use CFLAGS to test
> the possible compiler, so that it can select gcc even
> if it does not work with CFLAGS.
> 
> Solution:
> a) A quick fix: I can change the order of CC candidate in the
> look_for_C_compilers
> b) add CFLAGS when testing the CC candidate. Going to check if
> is compatible with other use of CC in genmake2.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
> 
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:11:55AM -0400, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> I have the impression that my latest changes in genmake2 could
>> have something to do with the recent fail test on solasrv4
>> (does not compile C subroutines). Can you confirm ?
>> 
>> It was clear to me that my changes would not change anything
>> when the C compiler is set in the optfile (CC=...). 
>> In the case of solasrv4, CC is not set in the opfile, but I thought
>> it would try to find a good one. I am interested in knowing
>> what is wrong in the "look_for_C_compilers" part of genmake2
>> (I am going to change testreport to return genmake.log +
>> genmake2.tr_log in case the built fail).
>> The part "look_for_C_compilers" was in previous genmake2 
>> but only used when no optfile was specified.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Jean-Michel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel