On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Hai Nguyen <nhai.qn.gmail.com> wrote:
> Just FYI to all:
> I've added PGI community version (16.10) to travis build and got different
> type of error, related to EMIL.
>
> very end: https://api.travis-ci.org/jobs/218320479/log.txt?deansi=true
>
>
Oops, I've this with master branch today, not release candidate.
Hai
> Hai
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Scott Brozell <sbrozell.rci.rutgers.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 08:57:09PM -0400, David Case wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017, Gerald Monard wrote:
>> > >
>> > > However, I've just quickly try to compile AmberTools17 on two
>> different
>> > > machines: my laptop (pgi 2016 community edition) and at a HPC center
>> (pgi
>> > > 16). On both, it fails to compile for different reasons (see
>> attachements),
>> > > but I'd be interested to test the speed of pmemd and cpptraj :-).
>> >
>> > The laptop errors are all in /usr/include/c++/6.3.1/exception, which
>> is a
>> > part of GCC. Is PGI supposed to use this file? Is the community version
>> > supposed to be compatible with verison gcc 6.3.1?
>> >
>> > The hpc error is in configure: looks like the way pgi is reporting
>> version
>> > information is not understood by configure2. What is the exact (dot)
>> version
>> > of PGI you are using? Dan reports sucess at this step for PGI 16.9.
>> >
>> > Can you report the output of "pgcc -V" on the hpc machine?
>> >
>> > We have 120 lines of fairly fragile code in configure2, just to check
>> versions
>> > from 9 through 16.5 of PGI. I have the feeling that the only time
>> anyone
>> > uses PGI compilers with Amber is in the weeks right before a release. I
>> > don't remember any complaints from actual users making it to the
>> mailing list.
>>
>> I use pgi routinely; eg, in early Feb:
>> commit 6617bd2954c5806bad39be0db2d782f5b8990861
>> Author: Scott Brozell <srb.osc.edu>
>> Date: Fri Feb 3 21:53:12 2017 -0500
>> Updated PGI support to 16.5.0: pgCC -> pgc++ and -pgcpplibs ->
>> -pgc++libs.
>>
>>
>> Of course, we could and probably should pick a version older than 9 or 13
>> to start our support which looks like it would then eliminate most version
>> checking. Easy post release work.
>>
>> Yes, we need to see pgcc -V from Gerald.
>> I am not seeing any such problems.
>>
>> I suspect that most test errors in a pgi build are lurking Amber bugs.
>>
>> I've started a build with
>> pgcc 17.3-0 64-bit target on x86-64 Linux -tp haswell
>>
>> scott
>>
>> ps
>> I'll start a build with Intel compilers without MKL.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
Received on Mon Apr 03 2017 - 21:30:03 PDT
