Yes, I agree with some provision for GCC5, perhaps as a separate toolchain.
Cheers, Adam > On 13 Jan 2016, at 13:32, Robert Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we should definitely build a GCC5 or a foss-unstable (or bleed) > toolchain so we can start to build for GCC5 and beyond. > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:18 AM Damian Alvarez <[email protected]> > wrote: > Another thing to consider might be CUDA. CUDA 7.5 requires GCC >4.3.4 && > <4.9.2 (even though with 4.9.3 works fine). It seems you can make it work (at > your own risk) with 5.X as long as you don't use C++11. However, that means > that CUDA+C++11 developers will have troubles (i.e.: won't work) in > EB-managed environments if we go for GCC 5.X. > > PGI-based toolchains might also require GCC <5.X, but I am not sure about > that, the documentation is not clear on that regard. > > I'd suggest to at least keep GCCcore as 4.9.3. With just GCCcore being 4.9.3, > the foss toolchain (with GCC 5.X) will be problematic for CUDA usage, but not > so the Intel toolchain. > > Damian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:easybuild- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Hoste > > Sent: Tuesday, 12. January 2016 20:42 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [easybuild] foss/2016a and intel/2016a common toolchains > > > > On 12/01/16 15:20, Ward Poelmans wrote: > > > On 11-01-16 21:50, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > > > > > >> ** GCC 4.9.3 vs GCC 5.3.0 ** > > >> > > >> The question here is if we stay with the latest release of GCC v4.x, > > >> which as it happens is still the same version as the one included in > > >> the 2015b toolchains, or if we make the jump to GCC 5.x. > > >> > > >> My personal feeling is that it's (still) too early to jump to GCC > > >> 5.x, and that we should stick to GCC 4.9.3 for the time being. > > >> > > >> The main reasons for this are that several Linux distributions are > > >> yet to pick up GCC 5.x as the main system compiler, and thus that > > >> there are many unknown issues that are bound to pop up left and > > >> right, and that the latest release of the Intel compilers is known > > >> not to be fully compatible yet with GCC 5.x (cfr. [4]). > > > I feel adventurous and would suggest that we do move to GCC 5. > > > > I don't think that 'adventurous' and 'stable' go together well, the latter > > is part > > of the point of having common toolchains. > > > > > The major > > > issues are the new ABI of libstdc++ and that it defaults to c++11. > > > > > > If we stick the default to c++98 and avoid the ( > > > -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0) we should be fine. > > But, aren't we crippling GCC 5 then? > > > > Having to jump through hoops like this is a sign to me that we should hold > > of > > jumping to GCC 5 for now. > > Even if it's only for foss, not intel; I'm strongly in favor of using the > > same GCC > > version in both foss and intel, it makes things a lot easier. > > We have enough issues to deal with as is to get stuff built/installed. > > > > > Maybe some poorly written > > > build systems will assume that the major GCC version is always 4 but > > > as GCC already did a couple of major version bumps, I think it will be > > > a minor issue. > > > > I think that's the least of our worries, and something we'll have to deal > > with > > sooner or later. > > This is not a strong argument for sticking to 4.9.3 imho. > > > > >> * GCC version in foss vs intel > > >> > > >> With the GCCcore concept that was introduced in EasyBuild v2.5.0, it > > >> is possible to use a common GCC version as a base for both the foss > > >> and intel toolchains (e.g. 4.9.3), while using a different GCC > > >> version in foss (e.g. 5.3.0). > > > What future do we see for GCCcore? I would keep it fixed at 4.9.3 for > > > quite some time in the future. As it is a base compiler, it not a big > > > deal that it's not the latest and greatest version? > > > > Well, since GCCcore is the base for the Intel compilers (as well as for the > > GCC > > used as main compiler in foss), moving on to whatever GCC >4 is compatible > > with the latest Intel compiler is important w.r.t. C++ features (and > > possible > > more in the future). > > > > So, I don't think sticking to 4.9.3 for years to come for GCCcore is going > > to be > > a good option. > > > > If you're concerned about getting GCC 5/6 to build with whatever GCC is > > default on the system, we can always make a small detour by specifying that > > GCC 4.9.3 is a build dependency of that GCC 5/6 we're after... > > > > > > K. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH > 52425 Juelich > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich > Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher > Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender), > Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, > Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The Francis Crick Institute Limited is a registered charity in England and Wales no. 1140062 and a company registered in England and Wales no. 06885462, with its registered office at 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE.
