Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

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


Hi,

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...
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.

Eric

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: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users