[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Libtool and CUDA
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Libtool and CUDA |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:25:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04) |
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 02:49:23PM CET:
> On 12/06/2010 01:07 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>>OK to apply?
> >>
> >>Unless Pawel reports that it works for him, no. This doesn't make
> >>sense to me.
> >Why?
>
> Well, perhaps I haven't been drinking enough coffee, but...
Hehe.
> >>> _LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_wl, $1)='-Xlinker '
>
> This assignment didn't work, or was overwritten later.
Where do you see that? As far as I understand, Paweł hasn't actually
tried configuring Libtool with something like
./configure CC=nvcc
because then the assignment will work.
> >>>- _LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)='-Xcompiler -fPIC'
>
> So, why will this make any difference?
See above.
> >>>+ if test -n "$_LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)"; then
> >>>+ _LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)="-Xcompiler
> >>>$_LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)"
> >>>+ fi
Of course the whole support currently won't work if you need to have
both compilers CC=gcc and, say, NVCC=nvcc or so; to workaround you
currently need a subpackage with a sub configure script where you
override CC=$NVCC.
We could fix that in the same way as the proposed Go patch: by
explicitly introducing a new language called Cuda or so. I'm not
disinclined, but since there exists no free version of this compiler
this might politically be a bit "interesting", to say the least.
I was wrong a bit in my last message though: the manual for version 2.0
does document --shared and -shared, and mentions that other flags
necessary for shared libraries need to be passed through with
-Xcompiler. Which matches my proposed patch.
Cheers,
Ralf