Re: [AMBER-Developers] configure_openmpi

From: Lachele Foley <>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:54:26 -0500

The thing I didn't get, and still don't, is why there is a compile instruction that calls mpif77 on code that contains F90-specific internal text. That's what, best I could tell from the error messages, happened with my build: mpif77 complained that it was being asked to compile fortran-90 code. That's what confused me.

:-) Lachele
B. Lachele Foley, PhD '92,'02
Assistant Research Scientist
Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, UGA
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Swails
To: AMBER Developers Mailing List
Sent: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:44:16
Subject: Re: [AMBER-Developers] configure_openmpi
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:04 AM, case <> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010, Jason Swails wrote:
> >>
> >> I was wondering if there is a specific reason why the
> >> --disable-mpi-f90 flag was put in configure_openmpi.
> >
> > Just to save time in a long compile, and to avoid problems that might
> arise
> > from a feature we don't use.
> >
> >> I've always changed FC from mpif77 to mpif90 simply because
> >> it feels more natural....
> >
> > Well, as a "tester", I'd prefer that you do what users would be doing, so
> that
> > if there *are* problems, we find them out as soon as possible.
> I did occasionally forget to change to mpif90, so I suppose I did test
> mpif77 occasionally :) (though I never built lam or openmpi that came
> bundled since i prefer my current MPI.  I'm guessing a large number of
> users will be in this boat, too, though I'm not sure).
> >
> >>  the recent change in configure from mpif77 to mpif90.
> >
> > OK, I give up.  Ross doesn't understand this, and Lachele doesn't, and
> you
> > don't.  I guess I can't expect users not to be confused.  Go ahead and
> update
> Given your explanation above, I don't think it's terribly hard to
> understand.  A downside of using mpif77, though, is if someone built
> their own MPI before trying to compile amber.  If someone has the
> intel compiler suite and naively (like I did when I first started, and
> I think like Lachele did when her mpif77 pointed to g77) used
> (configure; make; make install) without specifying F77, F90, and CC
> beforehand, the configure script will attempt to use a .real. F77
> compiler.  Thus, mpif77 pointed at gfortran/g77 while mpif90 pointed
> at ifort and mpicc pointed at icc (all by default).  mpif77 then
> failed to build amber after running ./configure -mpi intel since
> gfortran didn't recognize all the intel flags, but mpif90 worked.
> Since this happened to me, I obviously think this would be the issue
> more users would have (with their own MPIs rather than the ones we
> provide), but again my experience is very limited and I could be
> completely wrong.
> There are trade-offs to either choice, and with my limited experience
> I'm hardly qualified to provide suggest a definitive *better* option.
> I'll update configure_openmpi to maintain consistency with the current
> version of configure, though this can be changed back if it's decided
> the alternative is the better option.  My main concern was the change
> in configure that would make compilation fail with the built-in
> openmpi.
> > configure_openmpi.
> >
> > ....dac
> All the best,
> Jason
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------
> Jason M. Swails
> Quantum Theory Project,
> University of Florida
> Ph.D. Graduate Student
> 352-392-4032
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Tue Mar 02 2010 - 08:00:03 PST
Custom Search