Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

NCAR derecho compilers #967

Closed
dabail10 opened this issue Aug 8, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

NCAR derecho compilers #967

dabail10 opened this issue Aug 8, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor

dabail10 commented Aug 8, 2024

A couple things here.

  1. We should get rid of derecho_intel and start doing tests with intel-oneapi. Also, intel-classic will be going away, so will need to be removed eventually.

  2. All of the cheyenne options need to be removed.

I have a set of PRs for dsnow / dsnown and I will do this.

@dabail10 dabail10 self-assigned this Aug 8, 2024
@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor Author

dabail10 commented Aug 8, 2024

Also we are getting a ton of warnings as follows with the intel compilers:

ifx: command line warning #10121: overriding '-march=core-avx2' with '-march=core-avx2'

We just need to get rid of the -march=core-avx2 here.

@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor

apcraig commented Aug 8, 2024

I will be working on the intel-oneapi port. If you know how to do that, go for it. Most of it's there, it's just wasn't working a couple months ago due to compiler bugs.

Lets leave the intel-classic there for now. Also, lets leave the cheyenne stuff for now. The more examples we have, the better. We can get rid of cheyenne in a couple years.

The warning message #10121 is irritating, but as far as I'm concerned, that a problem with the compiler, not with our compiler options. I think explicitly setting -march is better than not.

@dabail10
Copy link
Contributor Author

dabail10 commented Aug 9, 2024

In terms of the warning, this -march flag is redundant. It is already on by default.

@eclare108213
Copy link
Contributor

Can this issue be closed now, since #974 was merged?

@apcraig apcraig closed this as completed Sep 29, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants