Re: [AMBER-Developers] configure and makefile questions

From: Scott Brozell <>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:45:24 -0400


On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 03:29:26PM -0400, Ben Roberts wrote:
> On 2/9/2010, at 2:58 a.m., Scott Brozell wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:13:29PM -0400, Ben Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >> First, what would people think about a couple of new flags to configure? I was principally thinking, "-debug" and "-warn". These turning on debugging and compiler warnings respectively. At the moment, building a debug version of Amber requires a bit of ad-hockery in config.h, and doesn't affect some components (those with their own configure scripts that are called by configure) at all.
> >
> > AMBERBUILDFLAGS is suppose to handle that and last time i used it,
> > with pgi compilers, it worked:
> > 4 drwxr-xr-x 2 xxxx 4096 Jun 6 01:38 pgo0gbin
> > E.g.,
> > make AMBERBUILDFLAGS='-DDEBUG -Wall -O0 -g'
> > does it for gnu.
> There were a couple of problems. One is that AMBERBUILDFLAGS wasn't necessarily observed everywhere, tied as it was to CFLAGS, OCFLAGS, FFLAGS and FOPTFLAGS. I've tried to clean that up a bit.

ok, thanks.

> The other is that different compilers have different options. For example, while gcc and gfortran may use the same syntax for enabling warnings and debug symbols, icc and ifort do things a little differently from each other. I can't speak regarding the PGI or Solaris compilers.

Yes, platform independence is a strength of this approach.
Debugging is an activity of developers; and developers should know
the debugging options of their tools.

> > Note that more than half a decade ago, i added the equivalent of your -warn.
> > Look in an old amber tree configure:
> > -verbose Add verbose compiler comment and warning flags.
> > It was a teasure trove and did all kinds of cool things:
> > optimization notes, link maps, etc.
> I don't have old trees, and couldn't easily find an old configure script in the git repo. Nevertheless, I've put some verbosity options into my own configure script, and shall see what I come up with.

attached is amber8's configure

> >> The second question is: I'm a little confused about why a "make uninstall" runs a "make clean"?
> >
> > There have been am-dev threads on this; maybe the gist is in some log.
> > I agree that it's unconventional.
> The most recent traffic I could find on the issue was back in January, when Ross redid a bunch of Makefile targets. At that time, it seems he made a decision to include a clean as part of "make uninstall". Would it annoy anyone if I take the "make clean" out of "make uninstall"?

That's the thread. Wouldn't annoy me.


AMBER-Developers mailing list

Received on Thu Sep 02 2010 - 19:00:04 PDT
Custom Search