From: Guanglei Cui (amber.mail.archive_at_gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 01 2009 - 21:27:07 CDT
I didn't keep the make log, but I plan to try it again some time this
week. Should I use mpiCC in Linux-x86_64-icc.arch, instead of
icc/icpc? One reason to build static binaries (as static as possible)
is to use the binary on other computers. The precompiled NAMD (UDP)
binary only depends on libdl, libm, libstdc++, libc, ld-linux-x86-64,
and libgcc_s. One should be able to build an MPI binary with similar
dependency, I suppose. Would you please elaborate why a static binary
may fail? What is ABI? Thanks.
> can't say without actually seeing which symbols are not found.
> you cannot link a fully static executable, if you have configured
> openmpi to use dynamic loading. you should never need to provide
> any of the linker flags that you quote but rather you mpiCC.
> with intel compilers, all you want is to link the intel libraries
> statically, i.e. use -i-static -static-libcxa.
> why do you want to link statically in the first place. with recent
> glibc versions, this is a very bad idea, as it would make your
> binaries fail in uncontrolled ways whenever an update would change
> the lowlevel ABI.
> Axel Kohlmeyer akohlmey_at_cmm.chem.upenn.edu http://www.cmm.upenn.edu
> Center for Molecular Modeling -- University of Pennsylvania
> Department of Chemistry, 231 S.34th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6323
> tel: 1-215-898-1582, fax: 1-215-573-6233, office-tel: 1-215-898-5425
> If you make something idiot-proof, the universe creates a better idiot.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Wed Feb 29 2012 - 15:52:53 CST