Re: [AMBER-Developers] more on ptraj compilation with Intel

From: Scott Brozell <>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:50:56 -0500


On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:09:15PM -0500, case wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010, Scott Brozell wrote:
> >
> > On 1 and 2, it looks like the important difference is the structure
> > of the intel compiler directories; where it works both C and fortran
> > are in the same dirs; where it doesnt they are segregated.
> Not for me. If I manually set LIBRARY_PATH, the both ptraj and nab work
> fine with intel 10 and no other changes; if I unset LIBRARY_PATH, then
> things break in the way Ross and Dan described. So, it does look like (?)
> icc version 10 consults the LIBRARY_PATH variable.

I meant that the underlying issue is the dir structure.

> > i think a more clever solution is to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
> You can give it a try, but (by its name) LD_LIBRARY_PATH should be applicable
> at load time, not at link time(?). Dan reports not having any luck with
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH. In any event, if you can set whatever PATH works, you could
> also set flibs_arch, which seems far safer to me.

My point is that the dynamic libs and the static ones are probably in
the same dirs. So we can use LD_LIBRARY_PATH at compile time.
This didnt turn out as clever as i had hoped since -L doesnt parse the :
separator; so my patch has to use sed:
    flibs_arch=`echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH | sed -e 's/^\(.\)/-L \1/' -e 's/:/ -L /g'`
    flibs_arch=" $flibs_arch -lifport -lifcore"
This isnt much (if any) improvement over your suggestion; it is slightly
easier to implement, but may not be as robust.

Testing needed here !

We could try defining in our configuration an environment variable
LIBRARY_PATH using LD_LIBRARY_PATH since they have the same syntax.
But its not clear that this would be an improvement on implementation
or robustness.


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Thu Mar 04 2010 - 20:00:03 PST
Custom Search