Re: [BLAST_ANAWARE]

From: zhangchi (zhangchi@general.lns.mit.edu)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 14:57:29 EDT


I think Chris' suggestion is good that we first put a gcc-3.2 on one or
two spuds and spend a few weeks with them both to learn and debug.

I was not able to use some of the standard C++ features with gcc-2.96.
Given that my major work is C++ codes developement, I would really like to
learn how gcc-3.2 works.

Chi

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Chris Crawford wrote:

> yeah,
> i agree that moving to gcc-3.2 will cause a lot of problems, and
> should be carefully coordinate with ernie bisson. (like linking with
> system/external/epics libaries). for example i was unable to compile
> root with gcc-2.96 installed as a compabibility package.
> however, it would be nice to have a machine with 3.2 installed to iron
> out all of these differences. i've got BlastLib2 and blastmc running on
> my maching with 3.2.
> --chris
>
> Tancredi Botto wrote:
>
> >To have only gcc-3.2 on the spuds is not a good idea until we also have
> >it on all blast machines including dblast. It was mentioned that gcc-3.2
> >was more compliant but I was not aware of any decision. It is not a personal
> >issue but as you know Root is definitely not compliant and we rely heavily
> >on it. I don't see the rush, given also the points below:
> >
> >_ Ernie bisson must be made aware so that once we are happy with gcc-3.2
> > we can schedule an installation on all other machine. Note the word
> > schedule ! He very much prefers that way, but so do we!! think of all
> > the various root versions here and there not so long ago.
> >
> >- Not everybody everywhere uses gcc-3.2. At least we should provide a way
> > to have a way to have two different compilations (src trees) and not
> > break the experiment.
> >
> >- gcc-3.2 won't speed up the code or fix bugs in the existing code. We are
> > supposed to use the existing code for an aymmetry measurament next week...
> >
> >- It will be wonderful to have gcc-3.2 for the v3 release, which already
> > is not "backward" compatible.
> >
> >- I have no problems if you install gcc-3.2 as an alt compiler on the
> > spuds. I have problems if we can't compile with gcc-2.96 anymore on the
> > spuds.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST