[OMPI users] Missing F90 modules

2008-07-30 Thread Scott Beardsley
I'm attempting to move to OpenMPI from another MPICH-derived implementation. I compiled openmpi 1.2.6 using the following configure: ./configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --program-prefix= --prefix=/usr/mpi/pathscale/openmpi

Re: [OMPI users] Missing F90 modules

2008-07-30 Thread Scott Beardsley
Brock Palen wrote: On all MPI's I have always used there was only MPI use mpi; Please excuse my admittedly gross ignorance of all things Fortran but why does "include 'mpif.h'" work but "use mpi" does not? When I try the "use mpi" method I get errors like: $ mpif90 -c cart.f call mp

Re: [OMPI users] Missing F90 modules

2008-07-30 Thread Scott Beardsley
The real problem is that it looks like we have a bug in our F90 bindings. :-( We have the "periods" argument typed as an integer array, when it really should be a logical array. Doh! Ahhh ha! I checked the manpage vs the user's code but I didn't check the OpenMPI code. I can confirm that

Re: [OMPI users] Missing F90 modules

2008-07-31 Thread Scott Beardsley
Ashley Pittman wrote: Nothing to do with fortran but I think I'm right in saying a lot of these command line options aren't needed, you simply set --prefix and the rest of the options default to be relative to that. Ya, I stole it from the OFED rpmbuild log. I wanted to reproduce exactly what

[OMPI users] Pathscale compiler and C++ bindings

2008-07-31 Thread Scott Beardsley
I saw your comment regarding Pathscale compiled OMPI and thought I'd bring discussion over here. I'm attempting to reproduce the bug described in ticket 1326[1]. Using 1.2.6 (plus the MPI_CART_GET patch) with the 3.2 compiler. I'm using a hello++.cc actually written by Jeff and co. It seems t

Re: [OMPI users] Pathscale compiler and C++ bindings

2008-07-31 Thread Scott Beardsley
we might be running different OS's. I'm running RHEL 4U4 CentOS 5.2 here

[OMPI users] PGI 10.0 configure fails (OMPI 1.3.3)

2009-11-24 Thread Scott Beardsley
There is a post on the PG forums[1] that claims it is a bug in the OMPI 1.3.3 configure script. I couldn't find any reference on the openmpi-users or openmpi-devel lists. Is there a fix for the configure script floating around. It seems more like a PGI problem to me. pgcc (v10.0) can't compile the

Re: [OMPI users] PGI 10.0 configure fails (OMPI 1.3.3)

2009-11-24 Thread Scott Beardsley
> pgcc v9 has problem to compile the above test program: Not for me (pgcc v9.0-3): $ cat c.c #include int main () { struct foo {int a, b;}; size_t offset = offsetof(struct foo, b); return 0; } $ pgcc -V pgcc 9.0-3 64-bit target on x86-64 Linux -tp gh-64 Copyright 1989-2000, The Portland Group

Re: [OMPI users] PGI 10.0 configure fails (OMPI 1.3.3)

2009-11-24 Thread Scott Beardsley
There appears to be a workaround posted on the forum[1]. I applied that "fix" but noticed no differences. Perhaps Jeff Squyres can add some insight? Thanks Scott [1] http://www.pgroup.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?p=6114

[OMPI users] Tight integration and interactive sessions with SGE

2008-11-12 Thread Scott Beardsley
I've been using OMPI 1.2.6 tightly integrated with Grid Engine for a bit now and it works great. However, I'm running into a problem running jobs from an interactive session (qlogin). I tried just doing "mpirun -np N /path/to/binary" where N > # of cpus per node but OMPI will just oversubscribe

Re: [OMPI users] Tight integration and interactive sessions with SGE

2008-11-12 Thread Scott Beardsley
Reuti wrote: qlogin will create a completely fresh bash, which is not aware of running under SGE. Although you could set the SGE_* variables by hand, it's easier to use an interactive session with: In the past we'd source some sge script and SLOTS, TMPDIR, etc were populated. $ qrsh -pe or

Re: [OMPI users] Tight integration and interactive sessions with SGE

2008-11-13 Thread Scott Beardsley
Reuti wrote: What do you mean by "in the past" - you upgraded SGE from version x to version y? You can still source ///.1/environment. Sorry, you are right, this hasn't changed. By in the past I meant before we started using OMPI (and SGE with tight integration). There is nothing stopping