Hi Sylvestre, thanks for taking care of this! But I still have some doubts.
Am Mittwoch, den 15.10.2008, 00:43 +0200 schrieb Sylvestre Ledru: > Here is the full comment from the Makefile: > > # This library is linked against various MCA components because all > # shared-memory based components (e.g., mpool, ptl, etc.) need to > # share some common code and data. There's two cases: > # > # 1. libmca_common_sm.la is a shared library. By linking that shared > # library to all components that need it, the OS linker will > # automatically load it into the process as necessary, and there will > # only be one copy (i.e., all the components will share *one* copy of > # the code and data). > # > # 2. libmca_common_sm.la is a static library. In this case, it will > # be rolled up into the top-level libmpi.la. It will also be rolled > # into each component, but then the component will also be rolled up > # into the upper-level libmpi.la. Linkers universally know how to > # "figure this out" so that we end up with only one copy of the code > # and data. > # > # Note that building this common component statically and linking > # against other dynamic components is *not* supported! > > > I commited a solution in our SVN, I just remove this library from the > libopenmi1 package and import *.a & *.la. I do not see how that is a solution, since it seems like we're now shipping just static libraries in the MCA components, or at least libmca_common_sm. I'd pretty much like to avoid that but am currently also confused a little about the issue. Can you acknowledge that we go for solution #2 with the current fix? Why can't static and shared co-exist for the MCA stuff? Also, in my understanding, the MCA components are seperate and not linked into an application at all, so I do not see the point in making them static. I may be wrong here. > As it is said in the Makefile, it will work but we are duplicating this > code in each component. > However, /usr/lib/openmpi/lib/libmca_common_sm.so.0.0.0 is only 6k... > We could go this way. Duplicating the code may have security implications and we should document the fact that we have duplicate code in static libraries properly, somewhere. > Any objections ? If not, I will upload it tomorrow. I'd be OK with it but liked to understand the issue since I have the feeling that the solution will cause trouble -- but it's nothing more than a feeling. Also, we are under freeze and a new upload today is not in any way better than a new upload next week. There are other open issues we could fix in one upload. I would not mind doing a seperate upload, however. That's up to you. Confused regards, Manuel
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil