Yes, I'm pretty sure we've seen that before, and it was ID'ed as either a local
configuration issue or a PGI bug.
On Jan 10, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <
> jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't worry about PGI 11. I'm happy enough knowing that PGI 12 works.
>
>
> Test is already running to satisfy my own
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Don't worry about PGI 11. I'm happy enough knowing that PGI 12 works.
Test is already running to satisfy my own curiosity.
But I'll only post the result if something fails.
-Paul
--
Paul H. Hargrove
Don't worry about PGI 11. I'm happy enough knowing that PGI 12 works.
On Jan 10, 2014, at 6:59 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I said earlier that PGI *12* has build mpi_f08 correctly in response to Larry
> baker asking about 11 and 12.
> I don't have a PGI 11 config
Jeff,
I said earlier that PGI *12* has build mpi_f08 correctly in response to
Larry baker asking about 11 and 12.
I don't have a PGI 11 config on my list at the moment, but would be
surprised if I can't find one.
I will look for a PGI 11, but am focused on the opal_path_nfs() stuff at
the moment.
On Jan 10, 2014, at 6:45 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> Keep in mind that I have no specific reason to think pgi-10 should be
> accepted for building mpi_f08.
> My only observation was that it seemed to be rejected w/ less configure
> testing than was applied to accept 8.0 and
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Can you send the output from pgi-10? We don't reject based on compiler
> name/version -- it should be all behavior-based checks...
Attached.
Keep in mind that I have no specific reason to think pgi-10
On Jan 10, 2014, at 1:26 PM, Paul Hargrove wrote:
> OMPI's configure says pgi-8.0 and pgi-9.0 are "good".
> But pgi-10.0 is rejected without even subjecting it to the tests.
> This situation (8.0 and 9.0 "better" than 10.0) sounds fishy to me.
That's true.
Can you send the
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Paul --
>
> The output from configure looks ok to me. We're testing for the various
> capabilities of the fortran compiler that we need, most of which have been
> around for quite a while. One Big New Thing
Paul --
The output from configure looks ok to me. We're testing for the various
capabilities of the fortran compiler that we need, most of which have been
around for quite a while. One Big New Thing that isn't around yet is the
type(*), dimension(..) notation, which no fortran compiler
Larry,
I didn't try pgi-11, but pgi-12.8 *does* have F08 support detected by
OpenMPI:
$ openmpi-1.7-latest-linux-x86_64-pgi-12.8/INST/bin/ompi_info --all | grep
-i f08
Fort use mpi_f08: yes
Fort mpi_f08 compliance: The mpi_f08 module is available, but due to
limitations in the pgf90
I wonder if the reason PGI V10.x does not use mpi_f08 bindings is that old PGI
compiler version number parsing error. (Unless, of course, if PGI V11.x or
V12.x do use mpi_f08 bindings.) In that old (autoconf?) bug, decisions were
made about features supported on PGI compilers by parsing the
My attempts to build the current 1.7.4rc tarball with versions 8.0 and 9.0
of the Portland Group compilers fails miserably on compilation of
mpi-f08-types.F90.
I am sort of surprised by the attempt to build Fortran 2008 support w/ such
old compilers.
I think that fact itself is the real bug here,
13 matches
Mail list logo