My feeling is that the current patch hide the symptoms without addressing the real issue.
As a side note: The compiler incriminated in this thread, works perfectly for 128 bits atomic operations in other projects where I use atomic LIFO & FIFO (but not the one from OMPI as I already raised my concerns about this). George. PS: Why are there totally non-related comments about FIFO in the opal_lifo.h (starting line 61)? On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet < gilles.gouaillar...@iferc.org> wrote: > Paul and all, > > i just pushed > https://github.com/open-mpi/ompi/commit/b42e3441294e9fe787fe8e9ad7403d5b8e465163 > > when a buggy compiler is detected, configure now forces > OPAL_HAVE_CMPXCHG16B=0 > this is enough to make opal_lifo test and make check happy again. > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > > On 2015/02/04 17:26, Gilles Gouaillardet wrote: > > Paul, > > my previous email was misleading. > > what i really meant is the opal_fifo test works fine with icc 2013u5 > (the release before 2013sp1) and > icc 2013sp1u2 and later > > so even if the reproducer fails with icc older that 2013sp1u2, that > might not impact ompi > since for other reasons, the bug is not hit > > for example, with icc 2013u5, OPAL_HAVE_CMPXCHG16B=0 so ompi stays away > from the compiler bug. > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > On 2015/02/04 17:15, Paul Hargrove wrote: > > Giles, > > Who says only 2 version are effected? > > I have access to 9 revisions of icc. > Using your reduced case I find 7 that fail and only 2 (the latest two) that > pass. > Discounting icc-12 (which can't compile the test) that makes 6 versions > effected by the bug (not 2). > > -Paul > > $ for x in 12.1.5.339 13.0.0.079 13.0.1.117 13.1.2.183 13.1.3.192 > 14.0.0.080 14.0.1.106 14.0.2.144 15.0.1.133; do module swap intel intel/$x > ; echo @ Testing Intel compiler version $x; icc conftest.c && ./a.out && > echo PASS ; done > @ Testing Intel compiler version 12.1.5.339 > conftest.c(10): error: identifier "__int128_t" is undefined > __int128_t value; > ^ > > compilation aborted for conftest.c (code 2) > @ Testing Intel compiler version 13.0.0.079 > a.out: conftest.c:36: main: Assertion `a.value == b.value' failed. > Aborted > @ Testing Intel compiler version 13.0.1.117 > a.out: conftest.c:36: main: Assertion `a.value == b.value' failed. > Aborted > @ Testing Intel compiler version 13.1.2.183 > a.out: conftest.c:36: main: Assertion `a.value == b.value' failed. > Aborted > @ Testing Intel compiler version 13.1.3.192 > a.out: conftest.c:36: main: Assertion `a.value == b.value' failed. > Aborted > @ Testing Intel compiler version 14.0.0.080 > a.out: conftest.c:36: main: Assertion `a.value == b.value' failed. > Aborted > @ Testing Intel compiler version 14.0.1.106 > a.out: conftest.c:36: main: Assertion `a.value == b.value' failed. > Aborted > @ Testing Intel compiler version 14.0.2.144 > PASS > @ Testing Intel compiler version 15.0.1.133 > PASS > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet > <gilles.gouaillar...@iferc.org> wrote: > > > Nathan, > > imho, this is a compiler bug and only two versions are affected : > - intel icc 14.0.0.080 (aka 2013sp1) > - intel icc 14.0.1.106 (aka 2013sp1u1) > /* note the bug only occurs with -O1 and higher optimization levels */ > > here is attached a simple reproducer > > a simple workaround is to configure with ac_cv_type___int128=0 > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > On 2015/02/04 4:17, Nathan Hjelm wrote: > > Thats the second report involving icc 14. I will dig into this later > this week. > > -Nathan > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:03:41PM -0800, Paul Hargrove wrote: > > I have seen opal_fifo hang on 2 distinct systems > + Linux/ppc32 with xlc-11.1 > + Linux/x86-64 with icc-14.0.1.106 > I have no explanation to offer for either hang. > No "weird" configure options were passed to either. > -Paul > -- > Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov > Computer Languages & Systems Software (CLaSS) Group > Computer Science Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900 > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing listde...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/02/16911.php > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing listde...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/02/16920.php > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing listde...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this > post:http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/02/16921.php > > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing listde...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/02/16922.php > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing listde...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/02/16923.php > > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2015/02/16926.php >
