Thanks for the comments, Davide! I'll use your numbering if no one else
My builds all look good, so I'm ready to submit the pull request. Or
were you about to do so yourself?
I was hoping Kenneth would jump in and tell us if we're right or wrong.
We can always adjust before he merges.
On 08/23/2016 02:27 PM, Vanzo, Davide wrote:
I started working on the same toolchain and I have the same problem
since the toolchain version numbering is not very clear. The temporary
number I chose is 3.1.10 for the following reasons:
* Since one of the elements got a major update (i.e. CUDA), I bumped
the toolchainmajor version to 3
* Since GCC got only a minor update with respect to gcccuda-2.6.10,
I set the minor version to 1
* I set the tiny version to 10 to allow other users to downgrade if
That was what came out from my personal interpretation of the
toolchain version rules, but I could be completely wrong.
Davide Vanzo, PhD
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education (ACCRE)
Vanderbilt University - Hill Center 201
On Aug 23 2016, at 1:15 pm, Eliot Eshelman <el...@microway.com> wrote:
I could use help with version numbering on a new toolchain.
I manage a GPU cluster and am in the process of adding support for
versions of CUDA. I'm working on CUDA 7.5 along with the FOSS
foss/2016a. When CUDA 8.0 comes out (soon) it can be paired with
The existing toolchain is gcccuda-2.6.10, which includes CUDA 5.5 and
GCC 4.8.2. I'm talking about moving to CUDA 7.5 and GCC 4.9.3-2.25.
In that context, what version number should I give gcccuda? If CUDA 5
was major version 2, then CUDA 6 would be version 3 and CUDA 7
version 4? Bump up to gcccuda-4.0.0? And to gcccuda-5.0.0 when
Once this is settled I'll submit pull requests on github for gcccuda,
gompic, and goolfc with the newer version of CUDA and suitable GCC,
Eliot Eshelman, Vice President
Strategic Accounts and HPC Initiatives
12 Richards Road, Plymouth, MA 02360