On Feb 25, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Paul Hargrove <phhargr...@lbl.gov> wrote: >> >> FIRST: >> I believe that *something* should have occurred when no dl component could >> be built. >> Either the build should have been aborted or it could/should have switched >> to building everything static. >> However, the failure at runtime should not have been the eventual outcome. > > Yes, it looks like I missed this case. > > This is a good question: what should we do here? > > 1. Abort the configure (e.g., insist that the user install libltdl or > --disable-dlopen) I'd do this. A clear message should make this no big deal for users, and in some cases it improves our odds of getting a (much welcome) report about some buggy dl component (or build system) logic. > 2. Fall back to a --disable-dlopen build > > --> I looked into #2; at first blush, it looks kinda hard to do. :-\ I.e., > by the time we figure out that neither dl component will build, all the > "whether dl functionality will be available or not" decisions have been made > (and are difficult to un-make). It would require some re-structuring -- > e.g., deferring the "whether dl functionality will be available or not" > decisions. Yeah, sounds like a real pain, plus it could mask legitimate issues while we iron the kinks out of the new dl framework. -Dave
