llvm dev - May 2015 - [LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp

Why is this thread still going? Isn't the most pragmatic choice to
just make it a build configuration option and be done? Then whoever is
actually packaging it can make the most sensible choice for their
needs..

Should I send a patch so this bikeshed thread can die?

----- Original Message -----
> From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "James H Cownie" <james.h.cownie at intel.com>,
"Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>,
"cfe-dev"
> <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List"
<llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Douglas Gregor" <dgregor at
apple.com>,
> "Michael Wong" <fraggamuffin at gmail.com>, "Alexey
Bataev" <a.bataev at gmx.com>, "Chandler Carruth"
> <chandlerc at google.com>, "Richard Smith" <richard at
metafoo.co.uk>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 10:43:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with
-fopenmp
> 
> Why is this thread still going? Isn't the most pragmatic choice to
> just make it a build configuration option and be done? Then whoever
> is
> actually packaging it can make the most sensible choice for their
> needs..
> 
> Should I send a patch so this bikeshed thread can die?
Yes, please send a patch.

 -Hal
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>> Cc: "James H Cownie" <james.h.cownie at intel.com>,
"Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>,
"cfe-dev"
>> <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing
List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Douglas Gregor"
<dgregor at apple.com>,
>> "Michael Wong" <fraggamuffin at gmail.com>,
"Alexey Bataev" <a.bataev at gmx.com>, "Chandler
Carruth"
>> <chandlerc at google.com>, "Richard Smith" <richard
at metafoo.co.uk>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 10:43:59 AM
>> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked
with -fopenmp
>>
>> Why is this thread still going? Isn't the most pragmatic choice to
>> just make it a build configuration option and be done? Then whoever
>> is
>> actually packaging it can make the most sensible choice for their
>> needs..
>>
>> Should I send a patch so this bikeshed thread can die?
>
> Yes, please send a patch.
Ok - I'll assume it's settled and this thread is dead unless someone
objects. Give me 1-2 days and I'll send something for review.

Thanks