On Apr 3, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Knepley <knep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote: > Barry Smith <bsm...@mcs.anl.gov> 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
