On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:49 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
> And inspecting a binary built in Sep 2008 (must have been 1.2.7), ldd
> resolves to my 1.4.1 copy without complaints. However, the loader is
> intelligent and at least offers a warning when I try to run this ancient
> binary
>
> ./a.out: Symbol `
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:15:45 +, Dave Love wrote:
> > Versions where bumped to 0.0.1 for libmpi which has no
> > effect for dynamic linking.
>
> I've forgotten the rules on this, but the point is that it needs to
> affect dynamic linking to avoid running with earlier libraries
> (specifically
Jeff Squyres writes:
> To be absolutely crystal clear: OMPI's MPI shared libraries now have
> .so versioning enabled, but you still can't install two copies of Open
> MPI into the same $prefix (without overriding a bunch of other
> directory names, that is, like $pkglibdir, etc.). This is becaus
Manuel Prinz writes:
> The ABI should be stable since 1.3.2. OMPI 1.4.x does set the libtool
> version info;
Oh, sorry. I grepped the code for the relevant libtool args and
couldn't see any evidence it was done. I wonder how I missed it.
> Versions where bumped to 0.0.1 for libmpi which has n
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:10:12 -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Indeed. Our wrapper compilers currently explicitly list all 3
> libraries (-lmpi -lopen-rte -lopen-pal) because we don't know if those
> libraries will be static or shared at link time.
I am suggesting that it is unavoidable for the perso
On Jan 25, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
> > The short version is that the possibility of static linking really
> > fouls up the scheme, and we haven't figured out a good way around this
> > yet. :-(
>
> So pkg-config addresses this with it's Libs.private field and an
> explicit command-li
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:09:47 -0500, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> The short version is that the possibility of static linking really
> fouls up the scheme, and we haven't figured out a good way around this
> yet. :-(
So pkg-config addresses this with it's Libs.private field and an
explicit command-line
On Jan 25, 2010, at 7:11 AM, Dave Love wrote:
> What's the status of (stabilizing and?) versioning libraries? If I
> recall correctly, it was supposed to be defined as fixed for some
> release period as of 1.3.something.
Correct. We started with 1.3.2 or 1.3.3, IIRC...? I'd have to go back and
Am Montag, den 25.01.2010, 12:11 + schrieb Dave Love:
> I assumed that the libraries would then be versioned (at least for ELF
> -- I don't know about other formats) and we could remove a major source
> of grief from dynamically linking against the wrong thing, and I think
> Jeff said that woul
