Hi EasyBuilders,

I'm trying to translate the existing WRF easyconfig to the new version
WRF 3.8.  It seems the developers tried hard to make life hard for
EasyBuild, as the "menu" for selecting the compiler is now not a simple
list any more.  The relevant output printed by the ./configure script
looks like this:

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please select from among the following Linux x86_64 options:

  1. (serial)   2. (smpar)   3. (dmpar)   4. (dm+sm)   PGI (pgf90/gcc)
  5. (serial)   6. (smpar)   7. (dmpar)   8. (dm+sm)   PGI (pgf90/pgcc): SGI MPT
  9. (serial)  10. (smpar)  11. (dmpar)  12. (dm+sm)   PGI (pgf90/gcc): PGI 
accelerator
 13. (serial)  14. (smpar)  15. (dmpar)  16. (dm+sm)   INTEL (ifort/icc)
                                         17. (dm+sm)   INTEL (ifort/icc): Xeon 
Phi (MIC architecture)
 18. (serial)  19. (smpar)  20. (dmpar)  21. (dm+sm)   INTEL (ifort/icc): Xeon 
(SNB with AVX mods)
 22. (serial)  23. (smpar)  24. (dmpar)  25. (dm+sm)   INTEL (ifort/icc): SGI 
MPT
 26. (serial)  27. (smpar)  28. (dmpar)  29. (dm+sm)   INTEL (ifort/icc): IBM 
POE
 30. (serial)               31. (dmpar)                PATHSCALE 
(pathf90/pathcc)
 32. (serial)  33. (smpar)  34. (dmpar)  35. (dm+sm)   GNU (gfortran/gcc)
 36. (serial)  37. (smpar)  38. (dmpar)  39. (dm+sm)   IBM (xlf90_r/cc_r)
 40. (serial)  41. (smpar)  42. (dmpar)  43. (dm+sm)   PGI (ftn/gcc): Cray XC 
CLE
 44. (serial)  45. (smpar)  46. (dmpar)  47. (dm+sm)   CRAY CCE (ftn/cc): Cray 
XE and XC
 48. (serial)  49. (smpar)  50. (dmpar)  51. (dm+sm)   INTEL (ftn/icc): Cray XC
 52. (serial)  53. (smpar)  54. (dmpar)  55. (dm+sm)   PGI (pgf90/pgcc)
 56. (serial)  57. (smpar)  58. (dmpar)  59. (dm+sm)   PGI (pgf90/gcc): 
-f90=pgf90
 60. (serial)  61. (smpar)  62. (dmpar)  63. (dm+sm)   PGI (pgf90/pgcc): 
-f90=pgf90
 64. (serial)  65. (smpar)  66. (dmpar)  67. (dm+sm)   INTEL (ifort/icc): 
HSW/BDW
 68. (serial)  69. (smpar)  70. (dmpar)  71. (dm+sm)   INTEL (ifort/icc): KNL 
MIC

Enter selection [1-71] :


So, for the foss-2016a toolchain, the correct option would be 34.

Is this as bad as it looks, or does the run_cmd_qa function already
provide the necessary features to deal with this?

Any help would be appreciated, but I do understand that probably this is
pretty screwed up ...

Sunny greetings,
  Andreas.


-- 
Dr. Andreas Hilboll

Center for Marine Environmental Sciences (MARUM)
                    - AND -
    Institute of Environmental Physics (IUP)

University of Bremen

U3145
Otto-Hahn-Allee 1
D-28359 Bremen
Germany

+49(0)421 218 62133  (phone)
+49(0)421 218 98 62133 (fax)
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/~hilboll

Reply via email to