* Barrett, Brian W wrote on Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:02:31PM CEST:
> (since AC_PROG_CC will add -g if CFLAGS is empty).
If CFLAGS is not set. If you './configure CFLAGS=', then it will not
modify that.
Going back into lurking mode ;-)
Ralf
Wise decision. "Platform heals" went out with the '80's.
Ken
-Original Message-
From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:40 PM
To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] [OM
In good email tradition, this thread went downhill. :-)
So Brian and I got on the phone and had a good long discussion about it. The
short version is that we need to ask those who know about compilers and
debuggers to figure out what the Right Thing to do is.
I'm not going to hold up 1.5.0 fo
Actually, it occurs to me that my commit doesn't even fix the case that it was
intended to fix -- @#$%@#$%%@#$ !!!
The main point of the patch was to fix totalview support. I did this by
examining CFLAGS. But because CFLAGS doesn't always contain -g, we use
$DEBUGGER_CFLAGS (setup in orte/con
Finally (and then I'm done), I mis-spoke in this thread a bit. -gstabs+ is a
problem. -gstabs really just defaults to GSTABS, which is what the default was
in 10.3, so of course it works. But -gstabs+ is the weird one and I'm not sure
I understand why it causes problems. And, it's not Apple
I do sympathize with the "the user said to do it" argument as that is in
keeping with our approach elsewhere. IIRC, what Jeff had implemented does print
out a warning if we override the flag, so this would only be a minor change
that might help alert people to what is going on. I would also sugg
Ok, so there is some middle ground I would dislike but not hate enough to
object to. How about having a AC_MSG_WARN if we find -g in the CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS
on OS X version 10.4 or later? Users get educated, I can still make
executables that are debugabble for my weird environment, and this thread
Unfortunately, there really is no middle ground. THe only option is to ask
Apple to fix -g to mean -gstabs on OS X. I'm cross compiling from one version
to another, so running an executable won't work. Looking at the three or four
ways that you can specify a target version won't work (especia
Can I offer a middle ground? I believe we have been burned enough with the -g
vs -gstabs situation on OSX that it merits defaulting "appropriately". So...
Can we detect if gstabs is actually supported by the OS vs the compiler?
If not, can we add logic that checks the OS target version and "does
On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>
>> Yes, but say I'm using a custom built version of gcc that doesn't do -gstabs
>> quite right. Now you've screwed me.
>
> The configure test checks to see if -gstabs+ is accepted by the
On Jul 27, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> Yes, but say I'm using a custom built version of gcc that doesn't do -gstabs
> quite right. Now you've screwed me.
The configure test checks to see if -gstabs+ is accepted by the compiler.
> I'm a firm believer that our configure script
Yes, but say I'm using a custom built version of gcc that doesn't do -gstabs
quite right. Now you've screwed me. I'm a firm believer that our configure
script should do what the user says, as exactly as possible. Changing AC
behavior a little bit is a gray area, but one I'm almost ok with (si
My thought was that if you specified "-g", you probably wanted -gstabs+.
Indeed, for years, I didn't know that -gstabs+ was required on OS X to make
debugging symbols work in gdb...
On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> Sorry for not replying sooner, I was on vacation the las
Sorry for not replying sooner, I was on vacation the last couple of days.
Ew - why do it that way? If I as a user specified -g, I sure don't want that
to magically become -gstabs. Overriding Autoconf's addition of -g with
-gstabs+ is fine, but overriding what the user says is just wrong.
Bria
Ok; a commit is queued up for the trunk tonight that should do this:
- If we're on Darwin
- And -g is in CFLAGS already
- Then do a test compile to see if -gstabs+ works
- If it does, then add it to CFLAGS
- Then double check and uniq-ify CFLAGS (to ensure -gstabs+ wasn't in there
already)
I can't speak for totalview, but as a developer on Darwin, adding -gstabs+
enables the clean use of gdb and would help immensely!
On Jul 15, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Resurrecting this orphaned discussion...
>
> Peter: so what exactly do you need? -gstabs or -gstabs+ when compil
Resurrecting this orphaned discussion...
Peter: so what exactly do you need? -gstabs or -gstabs+ when compiling these
files on Darwin? (or, more specifically, whenever the back-end compiler
supports one/both of these flags)
On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:43 PM, Paul H. Hargrove wrote:
>
>
> Jeff S
Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Jun 4, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Peter Thompson wrote:
It was suggested by our CTO that if these files were compiled as to
produce STABS debug info, rather than DWARF, then the debug info would
be copied into the executables and shared libraries, and we would then
be able to
On Jun 4, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Peter Thompson wrote:
> It was suggested by our CTO that if these files were compiled as to
> produce STABS debug info, rather than DWARF, then the debug info would
> be copied into the executables and shared libraries, and we would then
> be able to debug with Open MPI
19 matches
Mail list logo
