I just tried the Intel compilers and got the same behavior. The
relevant code in configure2 makes it seem like it was tested on a
machine or two that did not have the Intel compilers (line 1014):
mpiifort_version=`mpiifort -v 2>&1`
mpiifort_version=`echo $mpiifort_version | sed -e 's/mpiifort.*Library //g' -e 's/for Linux.*//g' -e 's/\.0.*//g' -e 's/bash.*found//g' -e 's/mpiifort.*license.*//g'`
I assume the purpose of the 'sed' command is to wipe out any error
messages and return a blank string. The output of a failed "mpiifort
-v" command will probably vary from platform to platform, so such an
approach probably won't work here.
This mechanism can be replaced by using "which" to detect the presence
of mpiifort or mpiicc in the PATH (akin to what's done for Python around
line 569) and only grep for the version if it exists.
I'd still say that Intel MPI is sufficiently specialized that we should
have users request it either via a -intelmpi flag like Dan suggested or
by setting up symlinks like Dave suggested. Unless mpicc/mpif90 is
provided by Intel's MPI in addition to mpiifort/mpiicc (which is so
weird!?), I might cast my vote in with Dave's suggestion for now. If
mpicc/mpif90 IS provided by IntelMPI, Dan's suggestion is best IMO.
I'm all for making users jump through (trivial) hoops (like setting up
system symlinks and squelching other MPIs from their PATH variables) to
support a combination that hasn't been that thoroughly tested yet by the
wider community. (If Dave's suggestion is not trivial to someone, they
should probably consider sticking with typical MPIs for now).
Just my 2c...
All the best,
Jason
On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 08:51 -0700, Ross Walker wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> The problem is that with Intel MPI mpif90 and mpicc point to gfortran and
> gcc while mpiifort and mpiicc point to ifort and icc. VERY annoying!!! -
> But it means relying on mpif90 and mpicc here doesn't work. That's why the
> check is in there. I'd have assumed though that Perri would have checked
> this on a machine that didn't have the intel MPI but did have the Intel
> compilers. Perri can you fix this today please.
>
> All the best
> Ross
>
>
> On 4/1/14, 8:45 AM, "David A Case" <case.biomaps.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Apr 01, 2014, Daniel Roe wrote:
> >>
> >> This check can be fixed, but the larger issue I think is configure
> >> shouldn't assume intel MPI will be used with Intel compilers. Instead, I
> >> think this should be a separate flag like '-intelmpi' that users can
> >> specify if they want mpiifort etc used instead of mpif90. Thoughts?
> >
> >For the -mpi flag, we have always said that it is up to the user to
> >make sure that the mpicc and mpif90 commands found in the PATH are the
> >ones
> >they really want. We don't try to distinguish (or care) whethere the
> >user is
> >using openmpi, or mpich, or mvapich, or some hardware-specific version.
> >
> >Why should we not do the same for Intel's mpi? That is, it is up to the
> >user
> >to make mpicc point to mpiicc, and mpif90 to point to mpiifort. We can
> >give
> >some hand-holding instructions, but it seems like we are going down a
> >long,
> >long path to try to support every MPI version's command names that might
> >come
> >up.
> >
> >This is a pretty tentative recommendation, but it is a simple one!
> >
> >...dac
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >AMBER-Developers mailing list
> >AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> >http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
--
Jason M. Swails
BioMaPS,
Rutgers University
Postdoctoral Researcher
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Tue Apr 01 2014 - 09:30:04 PDT
