Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |  

This web mail archive is frozen.

This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.

You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails have been added to it since July of 2016.

Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Help: OpenMPI Compilation in Raspberry Pi
From: Lee Eric (openlinuxsource_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-19 13:05:31


The cross-compile issue I fixed. Check following source code:
opal_config_asm.m4:897: [AC_MSG_ERROR([No atomic primitives available
for $host])])

It seems that checks the toolchain's tuple is one of: armv7* or armv6*
or armv5*. I have recompiled my toolchain and no such error occurred.
However, I hit another issue about fortran as configure running.

*** Fortran 90/95 compiler
checking for armv6-rpi-linux-gnueabi-gfortran...
checking whether we are using the GNU Fortran compiler... yes
checking whether armv6-rpi-linux-gnueabi-gfortran accepts -g... yes
checking if Fortran 77 compiler works... links (cross compiling)
checking armv6-rpi-linux-gnueabi-gfortran external symbol
convention... single underscore
checking if C and Fortran 77 are link compatible... yes
checking to see if F77 compiler likes the C++ exception flags...
skipped (no C++ exceptions flags)
checking to see if mpif77/mpif90 compilers need additional linker flags... none
checking if Fortran 77 compiler supports CHARACTER... yes
checking size of Fortran 77 CHARACTER... configure: error: Can not
determine size of CHARACTER when cross-compiling

Any hint? Thanks.


On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Lee Eric <openlinuxsource_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Any heads up? Thanks.
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:41 AM, Leif Lindholm <Leif.Lindholm_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> That isn't, technically speaking, correct for the Raspberry Pi - but it is a workaround if you know you will never actually use the asm implementations of the atomics, but only the inline C ones..
>>> This sort of hides the problem that the dedicated barrier instructions were not available in ARMv6 (it used "system control coprocessor operations" instead.
>>> If you ever executed the asm implementation, you would trigger an undefined instruction exception on the Pi.
>> Hah; sweet. Ok.
>> So what's the right answer? Would it be acceptable to use a no-op for this operation on such architectures?
>> --
>> Jeff Squyres
>> jsquyres_at_[hidden]
>> For corporate legal information go to:
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users_at_[hidden]