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

replace the use of build_targets in Clang and LLVM builds #2478

Conversation

branfosj
Copy link
Member

@branfosj branfosj commented Jun 17, 2021

(created using eb --new-pr)

#2449 added the functionality to build for multiple targets. This means that the items in build_targets are looped over and run as separate builds. However, the LLVM and Clang easyblocks use build_targets to set the machine types to build for in the CMake configure step. Without it we see make X86 -j 12 when building and that leads to the error make: *** No rule to make target 'X86'. Stop.

@branfosj branfosj added this to the next release (4.4.1) milestone Jun 17, 2021
@branfosj branfosj changed the title changes to build_targets (#2449) break Clang and LLVM builds replace the use of build_targets in Clang and LLVM builds Jun 17, 2021
@SebastianAchilles
Copy link
Member

Test report by @SebastianAchilles

Overview of tested easyconfigs (in order)

  • SUCCESS LLVM-11.1.0-GCCcore-10.3.0.eb

Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
rocky8-eb - Linux rocky linux 8.4, x86_64, Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6900K CPU @ 3.20GHz (broadwell), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/9b081197932c2d847a8c5f6bf921c52f for a full test report.

@SebastianAchilles
Copy link
Member

Test report by @SebastianAchilles

Overview of tested easyconfigs (in order)

  • SUCCESS LLVM-11.1.0-GCCcore-10.3.0.eb

Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
centos8-eb - Linux centos linux 8.3.2011, x86_64, Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz (skylake), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/ee07c99a4b7ba8b6a7c29234293e3c50 for a full test report.

@branfosj
Copy link
Member Author

Test report by @branfosj

Overview of tested easyconfigs (in order)

  • SUCCESS LLVM-11.1.0-GCCcore-10.3.0.eb
  • SUCCESS Clang-11.0.1-GCCcore-10.2.0.eb
  • SUCCESS LLVM-8.0.1-GCCcore-8.3.0.eb
  • SUCCESS CMake-3.12.1-GCCcore-7.3.0.eb
  • SUCCESS Clang-7.0.1-GCC-7.3.0-2.30.eb

Build succeeded for 5 out of 5 (4 easyconfigs in total)
bear-pg0206u03b.bear.cluster - Linux RHEL 8.3, x86_64, Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6248 CPU @ 2.50GHz (cascadelake), Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/7a352d10a08ca060cc7b8718fc031112 for a full test report.

@SebastianAchilles
Copy link
Member

Test report by @SebastianAchilles

Overview of tested easyconfigs (in order)

  • SUCCESS LLVM-11.1.0-GCCcore-10.3.0.eb

Build succeeded for 1 out of 1 (1 easyconfigs in total)
jrlogin11.jureca - Linux centos linux 8.3.2011, x86_64, AMD EPYC 7742 64-Core Processor, Python 3.6.8
See https://gist.github.com/c7253f9fc536f09c551726dac003dcff for a full test report.

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Jun 17, 2021

@branfosj Hmm, doesn't this show that the changes made in #2449 are not backwards compatible?

Or do we consider this an unlucky clash between ConfigureMake and the custom Clang easyblock?

Is there any way we can avoid this in ConfigureMake?

@branfosj
Copy link
Member Author

#2449 looks to be a good change, but it does cause this bug. The only alternative I can see is to rename the build_targets that #2449 introduced to something else, such as build_step_targets or build_cmd_targets.

@branfosj
Copy link
Member Author

I've put the alternative fix in #2479 - renaming built_targets in ConfigureMake.

@branfosj
Copy link
Member Author

closing in favour of #2479

@branfosj branfosj closed this Jun 18, 2021
@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Jun 18, 2021

#2479 is a better fix imho, I think it's a lot less likely that build_cmd_targets is used as a custom easyconfig parameter in existing easyblocks (outside of our easyblocks repo)

@branfosj branfosj deleted the 20210617191405_new_pr_dwJoWpLItf branch June 18, 2021 14:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants