[Ns-bugs] [Bug 486] Patches for compilation with icc

[code@nsnam.ece.gatech.edu]

http://www.nsnam.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=486


Rajib Bhattacharjea <raj.b at gatech.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |raj.b at gatech.edu




--- Comment #5 from Rajib Bhattacharjea <raj.b at gatech.edu>  2009-02-04 18:34:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Created an attachment (id=367)
 --> (http://www.nsnam.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=367) [details]
> icc flags for waf
> 
> These two patches enable compilation with icc.
> 
> The new waf has support for icpc, but the cflags extension in our patched waf
> does not. See waf-gjc-icc-cflags.patch for that. The patch does not add -Wall
> to CXXFLAGS because it makes icc very verbose.
> 

To be clear, the first patch isn't for ns-3-dev, right?  You are saying that it
is a patch against Gustavo's fork of waf?
https://code.launchpad.net/~gjc/waf/cmd

If so, the first patch is orthogonal to ns-3.  I suggest Gustavo decide what to
do with it (i.e. whether or not to merge it into his waf fork).  After doing
so, he can generate a new standalone waf and include this in ns-3-dev.

>From the perspective of ns-3, compilation with icc should probably be a not
officially supported feature (simply a feature of waf, which we happen to use),
meaning that the build could break anytime if you are using icc.  That said, if
changes like the second patch are proposed for ns-3 which don't regress the gcc
builds and generally make our code more standards compliant / cleaner, we
should accept them.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.nsnam.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.