RE: [pooma-dev] goofy Domain constructors

[Julian C. Cummings]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your comments.  Yes, I don't expect
Blanca to use aCC, since you're not targeting
HP platforms.  That is only for our benefit at
Caltech, where we have several parallel HP boxes.
I am doing that work outside the LANL contract,
but obviously I want changes folded in to the
official Pooma code, rather than carrying around
a separate "Caltech" version.  So I'm making
changes that will enhance portability but avoiding
ugly hacks that should not be necessary under the
ANSI C++ standard.

I just recently got an account on the new Compaq
TeraScale machine at Pittsburgh Supercomputing
Center.  I plan to take Pooma 2 over there at some
point and check things out under the Compaq compiler.
Also, I don't think my LLNL account is still active,
but I do have an account on the IBM SP machine at
San Diego Supercomputer Center.  Caltech has been
using the IBM Visual Age C++ compiler there for its
C++ code, and it seems to be fairly standard-compliant.
So again, I will take Pooma 2 there at some point and
see how things are looking under that compiler.  (By
the way, the Visual Age C++ compiler is usually in
/usr/vacpp/bin, rather than /usr/bin, so you need to
make sure you use the right one!)  This portability
testing will be done as part of the LANL contract.

-- Julian C.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Nystrom [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 10:59 AM
To: Mark Mitchell
Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden;
address@hidden
Subject: Re: [pooma-dev] goofy Domain constructors


Mark Mitchell writes:
 > Note that I'd feel differently if Blanca used aCC -- but as far as I
 > know they don't.

We do not currently use aCC and I don't anticipate us needing to any time
soon.  We use CodeWarrior, KCC and SGI CC right now.  We will need to use
the
Compaq C++ compiler although Kuck has said they will support KCC on that
platform.  Also, we might need to use the IBM compiler for the Livermore
machines although KCC is an option there also.  I noticed that KCC-4.0d is
available for both IBM and HP machines.  We'd like to be able to use gcc
also
but Mark says it is not up to the task yet.  Finally, we are compiling all
of
our stuff with KCC using the various "strict" flags and it is compiling fine
- and of course, that is including alot of Pooma 2 code.  So, it seems that
at least the parts of Pooma 2 that we are using must be pretty ANSI
compliant.  Of course, I'm all for cleaning up code implementation where it
is appropriate.

Just my 2 cents worth,

--
Dave Nystrom                    email: address@hidden
LANL X-3                        phone: 505-667-7913     fax: 505-665-3046