Difference between revisions of "Talk:Catherine Pitt"
import>Jss43 |
import>Cen1001 |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
So, my understanding is that pathscale uses a different file format when -Ofast is used (due to "inter-procedural analysis"?), and it can't find an appropriately compiled libm. I'd've thought pathscale would ship with the appropriate libraries for this, but there's nothing obvious in the pathscale directory. I suspect that this is not the last such error though...(and I'm really not that fussed by it). --[[User:jss43|james]] 10:00, 26 March 2008 (GMT) |
So, my understanding is that pathscale uses a different file format when -Ofast is used (due to "inter-procedural analysis"?), and it can't find an appropriately compiled libm. I'd've thought pathscale would ship with the appropriate libraries for this, but there's nothing obvious in the pathscale directory. I suspect that this is not the last such error though...(and I'm really not that fussed by it). --[[User:jss43|james]] 10:00, 26 March 2008 (GMT) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, but there is then supposed to be a second pass after the IPA linker's had a go where the program gets recompiled with the optimizations the IPA linker has found and linked again, for real. There's very little helpful stuff on this in the user guide though. --[[User:cen1001|Catherine]] 14:05, 26 March 2008 (GMT) |
||
Revision as of 14:05, 26 March 2008
pathscale -Ofast:
I had many problems getting pathscale to compile CPMD when using the -Ofast option (whereas it was easy if I used a lower level of optimisation) and so I had to give up. I wonder if this is why...--james 17:33, 20 March 2008 (GMT)
Do you find you get a load of library not found errors? If so then this is probably the reason. I can always try to add the appropriate pieces to make Pathscale behave in to the library modules. --Catherine 11:34, 25 March 2008 (GMT)
Yup, this does seem to make a big difference! I don't think there are any modules on the workstations that require this fix. The ACML on tardis was already fixed (this is where I found the note) and I've done the new FFTW module on tardis (won't go live until I unleash a whole set of changes to make tardis's modules more logical) --Catherine 11:57, 25 March 2008 (GMT)
I think it was library not found/linking errors. I'll have to check. I'm fairly certain it was on my workstation though. I'll take a look again. --james 12:20, 25 March 2008 (GMT)
Indeed it is. On keiko:
$ make .... /shared/shared/pathscale/pathscale-compilers-suse9.0-3.0-103.13929_suse9.0_psc/lib/3.0/ipa_link: cannot find -lacml pathf90 INTERNAL ERROR: /shared/shared/pathscale/pathscale-compilers-suse9.0-3.0-103.13929_suse9.0_psc/lib/3.0/ipa_link returned non-zero status 1
If I replace the Ofast with O3, then it works fine. --james 13:44, 25 March 2008 (GMT)
Thanks! I need to go and mangle the ACML modules I guess (you're using one of my modules, right?) I missed them this morning because I don't have a 64-bit workstation handy for testing. --Catherine 15:14, 25 March 2008 (GMT)
I'm using the amcl/64/pathscale module. We all know whose fault the lack of a 64-bit test machine is... ;-) --james 15:49, 25 March 2008 (GMT)
OK, I've edited the ACML modules to set PSC_GENFLAGS, which is honoured by the Pathscale linker, so give it another go some time. --Catherine 09:20, 26 March 2008 (GMT)
Cool. That solved that error.
$ make ... /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/4.1.2/../../../../lib64//libm.so: file not recognized: File format not recognized pathf90 INTERNAL ERROR: /shared/shared/pathscale/pathscale-compilers-suse9.0-3.0-103.13929_suse9.0_psc/lib/3.0/ipa_link returned non-zero status 1
So, my understanding is that pathscale uses a different file format when -Ofast is used (due to "inter-procedural analysis"?), and it can't find an appropriately compiled libm. I'd've thought pathscale would ship with the appropriate libraries for this, but there's nothing obvious in the pathscale directory. I suspect that this is not the last such error though...(and I'm really not that fussed by it). --james 10:00, 26 March 2008 (GMT)
Yes, but there is then supposed to be a second pass after the IPA linker's had a go where the program gets recompiled with the optimizations the IPA linker has found and linked again, for real. There's very little helpful stuff on this in the user guide though. --Catherine 14:05, 26 March 2008 (GMT)