[lsb-discuss] LSB -- next 4.1

Robert Schweikert rschweikert at novell.com
Thu May 28 07:07:53 PDT 2009

IMHO the compiler is NOT part of the OS. In addition as an application 
or library provider I would think that having to install a compiler to 
use the app or library is undesirable. Why would one put the user 
through this? From a user perspective I would want to install the app or 
library and just use it without having to jump through hoops and install 
a compiler in addition just to get the correct RTE.

Unlike the STL, OpenMP is not part of a given language, it is more like 
an aspect.

I suppose if everyone agrees, i.e. all OpenMP library implementers, on 
the interfaces an OpenMP library should provide it might be a lot easier 
to consider for the LSB. With a bit of scripting one could at least 
easily compare the interfaces provided by libgomp, libguide, and 
Portland Group's version. That would cover the major compiler vendors.

In any event having shippable implementations will lead to a faster 
success than waiting for inclusion of OpenMP in the LSB, I think.


Dallman, John wrote:
> Robert Schweikert [mailto:rschweikert at novell.com] wrote:
>> IMHO we want to have the various openMP RTE libraries be LSB compliant
>> such that they can be shipped.
> We'd feel extremely nervous about doing that. Run-time libraries like 
> that seem much more like parts of the OS than of an application to me.
> Feel free to explain why I'm wrong. 

Robert Schweikert                           MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
Software Engineer Consultant                          LINUX
rschweikert at novell.com

Making IT Work As One

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list