Ralph, Is the root cause we append our stuff to CPPFLAGS, instead of prepend ?
You can retrieve the compile command line with make V=1 If my guess is correct, does someone know the rationale for append vs prepend ? Cheers, Gilles r...@open-mpi.org wrote: >Hey folks > > >I’m encountering an issue with the way we detect external HWLOC. If I have a >directory that includes an hwloc installation in my CPPFLAGS, then we fail to >build, even if I don’t specify anything with regard to hwloc on my configure >cmd line. The errors I get look like: > > >In file included from sec_basic.c:11:0: > >../../../../opal/include/opal_config.h:1348:0: note: this is the location of >the previous definition > > #define HWLOC_SYM_PREFIX opal_hwloc1113_ > > ^ > >In file included from >../../../../opal/mca/hwloc/hwloc1113/hwloc/include/hwloc.h:53:0, > > from ../../../../opal/mca/hwloc/hwloc1113/hwloc1113.h:24, > > from ../../../../opal/mca/hwloc/hwloc.h:131, > > from ../../../../opal/util/proc.h:21, > > from ../../../../opal/mca/sec/sec.h:25, > > from ../../../../opal/mca/sec/base/base.h:23, > > from sec_basic.c:22: > >/Users/rhc/local/include/hwloc/autogen/config.h:200:0: warning: >"HWLOC_SYM_PREFIX_CAPS" redefined > > #define HWLOC_SYM_PREFIX_CAPS HWLOC_ > > ^ > >In file included from sec_basic.c:11:0: > >../../../../opal/include/opal_config.h:1351:0: note: this is the location of >the previous definition > > #define HWLOC_SYM_PREFIX_CAPS OPAL_HWLOC1113_ > > ^ > >Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: > > "_hwloc_bitmap_alloc", referenced from: > > import-atom in libopen-pal.dylib > > "_hwloc_bitmap_and", referenced from: > > import-atom in libopen-pal.dylib > > "_hwloc_bitmap_copy", referenced from: > > import-atom in libopen-pal.dylib > > "_hwloc_bitmap_first", referenced from: > > import-atom in libopen-pal.dylib > > "_hwloc_bitmap_free", referenced from: > > import-atom in libopen-pal.dylib > > "_hwloc_bitmap_intersects", referenced from: > > import-atom in libopen-pal.dylib > > "_hwloc_bitmap_isincluded", referenced from: > >... > > >Lots and lots of repetitions of the warning from many different sources, and >it’s clear that we somehow picked up the external header and went haywire. >This isn’t what we intended to have happen - we are supposed to ignore >external installations unless directed to use them. > > >Is this the expected behavior? Any way we can clean this up? > >Ralph > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
