On Tue, Apr 01, 2014, Dan Roe wrote:
> My take on this is that the (now) long-standing behavior of Amber configure
> has been to use mpicc/mpif90 as the designated compiler wrappers for MPI
> compilation. The intel MPI 'mpiifort' etc. naming represents a deviation
> from this, which is why I think it should be handled by a compiler flag,
> much like the way '-crayxt5' deals with compiler wrappers on a cray system.
> Also, just because a user has Intel MPI installed doesn't necessarily mean
> they want to automatically use it for Amber. My vote is to make the Intel
> MPI logic separate from the 'intel' compiler flag, and for it to require a
> specific flag to configure.
I agree with Dan here....looks like may need a new flag, say like -intelmpi.
I hope that there is some performance gain that pays dividends for all this
extra complication: we spend a lot of effort to keep track of Intel's
ever-changing API's for compilers, MKL and MPI.
...dac
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Tue Apr 01 2014 - 18:30:03 PDT
