On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 04:26:31PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > I'll now compile the 1.2.3 release tarball and see if I can reproduce
The 1.2.3 release also works fine:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ./ompi123/bin/mpirun -np 2 ring
0: sending message (0) to 1
0: sent message
1: waiting for message
1: got message (1) from 0, sending to 0
0: got message (1) from 1
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ./ompi123/bin/ompi_info
Open MPI: 1.2.3
Open MPI SVN revision: r15136
Open RTE: 1.2.3
Open RTE SVN revision: r15136
OPAL: 1.2.3
OPAL SVN revision: r15136
Prefix: /home/adi/ompi123
Configured architecture: x86_64-unknown-kfreebsd6.2-gnu
> > the segfaults. On the other hand, I guess nobody is using OMPI on
> > GNU/kFreeBSD, so upgrading the openmpi-package to a subversion snapshot
> > would also fix the problem (think of "fixed in experimental").
> Well, I generally prefer to follow upstream releases, and Jeff from the
> upstream team echoed that. Let's wait for 1.2.4, shall we?
That's fine, v1.2 is the production release.
> | JFTR: It's currently not possible to compile OMPI on amd64 (out of the
> | box). Though it compiles on i386
> |
> |
> http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=openmpi&ver=1.2.3-3&arch=kfreebsd-i386&stamp=1187000200&file=log&as=raw
> |
> | it fails on amd64:
> |
> |
> http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=openmpi&ver=1.2.3-3&arch=kfreebsd-amd64&stamp=1186969782&file=log&as=raw
> |
> | stacktrace.c: In function 'opal_show_stackframe':
> | stacktrace.c:145: error: 'FPE_FLTDIV' undeclared (first use in this
> | function)
> | stacktrace.c:145: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only
> | once
> | stacktrace.c:145: error: for each function it appears in.)
> | stacktrace.c:146: error: 'FPE_FLTOVF' undeclared (first use in this
> | function)
> | stacktrace.c:147: error: 'FPE_FLTUND' undeclared (first use in this
> | function)
> | make[4]: *** [stacktrace.lo] Error 1
> | make[4]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd/openmpi-1.2.3/opal/util'
> |
> |
> | This is caused by libc0.1-dev in /usr/include/bits/sigcontext.h, the
> | relevant #define's are placed in an #ifdef __i386__ condition. After
> | extending this for __x86_64__, everything works fine.
> |
> | Should I file a bugreport against libc0.1-dev or will you take care?
> I'm confused. What is libc0.1-dev?
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/libdevel/libc0.1-dev
It's the "libc6-dev" for GNU/kFreeBSD, at least that's how I understand
it.
> Also note that I happened to have uploaded a third Debian revision of 1.2.3
> yesterday, and that Debian release 1.2.3-3 built fine on amd as per:
>
> http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?&pkg=openmpi&ver=1.2.3-3&arch=amd64&file=log
>
> So are we sure there's a bug?
Yes, absolutely. I was a little bit imprecise: with amd64, I ment
kfreebsd-amd64, not Linux-amd64.
If you follow my two links and read their headlines, you can see that
these are the buildlogs of 1.2.3-3 on kfreebsd, working for i386, but
failing for amd64.
This is caused by "wrong" libc headers on kfreebsd, that's why I thought
Uwe might want to have a look at it.
--
Cluster and Metacomputing Working Group
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany
private: http://adi.thur.de
