Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

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

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support (or is this about cmake now?)
From: Elken, Tom (tom.elken_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-16 17:40:28


Martin Siegert wrote:
> Just set LDFLAGS='-Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/xyz/lib64' with autotools.
> With cmake? Really complicated.

John Cary wrote:
> For cmake,
>
> -DCMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS:STRING=-Wl,-rpath,'$HDF5_SERSH_DIR/lib'
> or
> -DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS:STRING=-Wl,-rpath,'$HDF5_SERSH_DIR/lib'
[Tom]
OK, so you verified the "really complicated" comment.

It seems clear to me that the OpenMPI developers are not going to switch to Cmake.
So why is this discussion continuing?

-Tom

>
> I don't have a dog in this, but I will say that we have found supporting
> Windows
> to be much easier with cmake. If that is not an issue, then autotools is
> is just fine too. We do both and are happy with either.
>
> Yes, one must build cmake to use it. Does not seem to be a critical
> issue to me if one wants to support Windows, as you have to install
> something (e.g., cygwin) to use autotools.
>
> We looked into cmake for openmpi a while ago, but only because we wondered
> whether there was much interest in supporting Windows. There wasn't.
>
> As to compiler support, we build our codes on all of
>
> Clang, OS X native (which is variants of GNU and Clang),
> PGI, Intel, Cray, Microsoft Visual, IBM BlueGene (xl).
>
> Have not tried Absoft, HP-UX, Oracle Solaris (Linux and Solaris), Tru64.
> Only rarely are we seeing the last three OS's anymore. No requests.
> But I am confident cmake could do these.
>
> ..........John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/16/2014 3:00 PM, Martin Siegert wrote:
> > +1 even if cmake would make life easier for the developpers, you may
> > want to consider those sysadmins/users who actually need to compile
> > and install the software. And for those cmake is a nightmare. Everytime
> > I run into a software package that uses cmake it makes me cringe.
> > gromacs is the perfect example - it has become orders of magnitudes
> > more complicated to compile just because it now uses cmake. I still
> > have not succeeded cross compiling (compiling on a machine with a
> > different processor than the code will later run on) gromacs. This was
> > trivial before they switched to cmake.
> > Another example: want to add RPATH to the executables/libraries?
> > Just set LDFLAGS='-Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/xyz/lib64' with autotools.
> > With cmake? Really complicated.
> >
> > Please, just say no.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin
> >
> > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 08:33:15PM +0000, Hjelm, Nathan T wrote:
> >> +1 the bootstrapping issue is 50% of the reason I will never use CMake for
> any production code.
> >>
> >> vygr:~ hjelmn$ type -p cmake
> >> vygr:~ hjelmn$
> >>
> >> Nada, zilch, nothing on standard OS X install. I do not want to put an extra
> requirement on my users. Nor do I want something as simple-minded as CMake.
> autotools works great for me.
> >>
> >> -Nathan
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: users [users-bounces_at_[hidden]] on behalf of Ralph Castain
> [rhc_at_[hidden]]
> >> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 2:07 PM
> >> To: Open MPI Users
> >> Subject: Re: [OMPI users] Question about scheduler support
> >>
> >> On May 16, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Fabricio Cannini
> <fcannini_at_[hidden]<mailto:fcannini_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Em 16-05-2014 10:06, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) escreveu:
> >> On May 15, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Fabricio Cannini
> <fcannini_at_[hidden]<mailto:fcannini_at_[hidden]>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nobody is disagreeing that one could find a way to make CMake
> >> work - all we are saying is that (a) CMake has issues too, just
> >> like autotools, and (b) we have yet to see a compelling reason to
> >> undertake the transition...which would have to be a *very*
> >> compelling one.
> >>
> >> I was simply agreeing with Maxime about why it could work. ;)
> >>
> >> But if you and the other devels are fine with it, i'm fine too.
> >>
> >> FWIW, simply for my own curiosity's sake, if someone could confirm
> >> deny whether cmake:
> >>
> >> 1. Supports the following compiler suites: GNU (that's a given, I
> >> assume), Clang, OS X native (which is variants of GNU and Clang),
> >> Absoft, PGI, Intel, Cray, HP-UX, Oracle Solaris (Linux and Solaris),
> >> Tru64, Microsoft Visual, IBM BlueGene (I think that's gcc, but am
> >> not entirely sure). (some of these matter mainly to hwloc, not
> >> necessarily OMPI)
> >>
> >> Not 100% confirmed, but this is good evidence that cmake does indeed
> supports all these suites. See the file list:
> >>
> >> http://fr2.rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/centos/6.5/x86_64/Packages/cmake-
> 2.6.4-5.el6.x86_64.html
> >>
> >> http://fr2.rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/dag/redhat/el6/x86_64/extras/cmake-
> 2.8.8-1.el6.rfx.x86_64.html
> >>
> >>
> http://fr2.rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/opensuse/factory/aarch64/aarch64/cmake-
> 3.0.0~rc4-2.1.aarch64.html
> >>
> >> 2. Bootstrap a tarball such that an end user does not need to have
> >> cmake installed.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by 'bootstrapping a tarball' ?
> >>
> >> If someone doesn't have cmake installed and downloads a tarball that was
> built from a CMake-based project, can they configure/build that tarball? Or do
> they have to install cmake first?
> > _______________________________________________
> > users mailing list
> > users_at_[hidden]
> > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/users