1 |
Hi Nick, |
2 |
|
3 |
thanks for your contribution. |
4 |
|
5 |
I think there is no general answer to your question. It depends if it |
6 |
is a disadvantage of running the mpi-version with 1 MPI process over |
7 |
running the serial version. I imagine that LAMMPS enable some special |
8 |
optimization if mpi is disabled as it can assume that everything |
9 |
happens locally and no mpi message need to be send. On the other hand, |
10 |
if the build of LAMMPS takes hours, one might prefer building it only |
11 |
once. Do LAMMPS offer other palatalizations like OpenMP or Threads to |
12 |
use multiple cores? |
13 |
|
14 |
From a brief look at our patch I see the following issues: |
15 |
- I am not sold on this Makefile patch and patching of the patch |
16 |
approach, seems a bit fragile. It might be better to use the default |
17 |
gcc Makefile and patch that. I prefer adding CC,CFLAGS etc, on emake |
18 |
comandline, you could create a function to avoid writing it on every |
19 |
emake call. (my_emake() { emake "$@" CC= CFLAGS=; } ) |
20 |
- sed calls need to secured with "|| die" |
21 |
- DEPEND should be static, DEPEND="mpi? ( vitrual/mpi )" should do it |
22 |
- virtual/fortran is missing in DEPEND or use fortran-2.eclass and |
23 |
FORTRAN_NEEDED="fortran" instead. |
24 |
- lammps-gzip enables normal gzip support, so the use flags should be |
25 |
called gzip. |
26 |
|
27 |
If you are unsure about some technical details in an ebuild, create a |
28 |
pull request on github and somebody will give you advice in the |
29 |
review. |
30 |
|
31 |
Otherwise good job, looking forward to more commits from you, |
32 |
|
33 |
Christoph |
34 |
|
35 |
2013/5/12 Nicolas Bock <nicolasbock@×××××.com>: |
36 |
> Hi, |
37 |
> |
38 |
> I recently added a lammps ebuild to the science overlay. It so far only |
39 |
> builds the serial version, and has very limited support for build time |
40 |
> options. I now added the mpi use flag and changed the ebuild so that it |
41 |
> builds the mpi version. I have attached a patch against master that does |
42 |
> this. I would like to get some feedback on those changes. Are they |
43 |
> acceptable in this form? What should I have done differently? How would I go |
44 |
> about writing an ebuild that builds both, the serial _and_ the mpi version |
45 |
> in case the mpi use flag is set? |
46 |
> |
47 |
> Thanks already, |
48 |
> |
49 |
> nick |
50 |
> |
51 |
|
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
Christoph Junghans |
56 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ottxor/ |