Hi, I am trying to get my head spun around those three modules. As far as I can see the change has been as follows:
GCC-4.9.3-binutils-2.25.eb => GCCcore-4.9.3.eb GNU-4.9.3-2.25.eb => GCC-4.9.3-2.25.eb icc-2015.3.187-GNU-4.9.3-2.25.eb => icc-2015.5.223-GCC-4.9.3-2.25.eb However apart from the name change I see two important differences: 1. GCC-4.9.3-2.25.eb is marked moduleclass='compiler' and easyblock='Bundle', but GNU-4.9.3-2.25 was marked moduleclass='toolchain' and easyblock='Toolchain'. That lets GCC-4.9.3-2.25 conflict with icc which is also marked 'compiler'. 2. (most important I guess) icc/icc-2015.5.223-GCC-4.9.3-2.25.eb does NOT depend on GCC/4.9.3-2.25 but instead directly on its sub-components (GCCcore and binutils). This is unlike the older icc*GNU* which depended on GNU. Now what I like about the new scheme: * with the old scheme I can do module load iccifort this loads 1) icc/2015.3.187-GNU-4.9.3-2.25 4) GNU/4.9.3-2.25 2) GCC/4.9.3-binutils-2.25 5) ifort/2015.3.187-GNU-4.9.3-2.25 3) binutils/.2.25 6) iccifort/2015.3.187-GNU-4.9.3-2.25 however, then doing (in an hierarchical toolchain) a "module load OpenMPI" is ambiguous since both the GNU and iccifort variations now qualify. Just the order of MODULEPATH gets me in fact the iccifort build of OpenMPI. ===> with the new scheme GCC is replaced with GCCcore, and GNU is gone, so only 5 modules loaded, and no ambiguity. Question: the same thing could have been done without the name change (GCC->GCCcore, GNU->GCC) right? But I read the reason for not doing so is a) clarity and b) having the possibility of different GCCcore and GCC versions, e.g. GCCcore 4.9.3 + GCC 5.2.0-2.25? Regards, Bart -- Dr. Bart E. Oldeman | [email protected] | [email protected] Scientific Computing Analyst / Analyste en calcul scientifique McGill HPC Centre / Centre de Calcul Haute Performance de McGill | http://www.hpc.mcgill.ca Calcul Québec | http://www.calculquebec.ca Compute/Calcul Canada | http://www.computecanada.ca Tel/Tél: 514-396-8926 | Fax/Télécopieur: 514-396-8934
