On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: > > > Why not just always assume -lm is needed and only remove -lm if it > > doesn’t exist? > > That would be fine with me. > > How does this solve the problem? You might get an error from the linker if > -lm is not found (maybe not), > but you still cannot test that the symbols we expect to be there are actually > there. So use rand() to get input for the -lm library tests. Barry > > Matt > > > > -- > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments > is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments > lead. > -- Norbert Wiener
