On 22/07/2019 21:23, Mikael Öhman wrote:
It's not like the python module couldn't load the binutils it was built
with, it's just not done like that.
The problem Alastair ran into actually shows that binutils should be
considered a runtime dependency of Python (or actually, of pip which is
included with Python) rather than only a build dependency.
That should be a fairly easy change to make, without much impact elsewhere?
K.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:38 PM Alastair Neil <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Looking at the modules easybuild built for binutils it seems there
are two versions one which loads GCCcore and one that is standalone
presumable for such cases as you just described.
No, not at all; the standalone one is just meant for boot-strapping the
toolchains.
Could the python module be changed to import the binutils that load
GCCcore rather than loading GCCcore?
No that wouldn't really make much sense. In fact, the only reason you
get to load GCCcore is because of the flat naming scheme you have used
for your modules.
In a hierarchical naming scheme, you would need to select the
toolchain/compiler first, before you could even load Python:
module load GCCcore/8.2.0 # this makes the Python/3.7.2 available
module load Python/3.7.2
It's not like Python couldn't load binutils. We have intentionally
chosen to not to. This applies to all build-dependencies.
