Page 13 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 235

Thread: PathScale Open-Sources The EKOPath 4 Compiler Suite

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    I must admit that I never heard of this compiler before (the hints by Michael a while ago were the first time I heard the name "PathScale".) Looks very promising. I wonder if I can use this for MPI (using OpenMPI).
    We should build OpenMPI no problem. If you've got an AMD cluster I bet you'll be happy you did. (Intel will heavily depend on your code)

  2. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    I tried compiling wine (both wine64 and the 32bit version). With wine64 it compiles for a while but then fails with this:

    Code:
                                                                                                                                        
    ../../include/winbase.h:1574: warning: 'ms_abi' attribute directive ignored                                                                                                                                         
    ../../include/winbase.h:1575: warning: 'ms_abi' attribute directive ignored                                                                                                                                         
    ../../include/winbase.h:1576: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before '__builtin_ms_va_list'                                                                                                         
    ../../include/winbase.h:1576: warning: 'ms_abi' attribute directive ignored                                                                                                                                         
    ../../include/winbase.h:1577: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before '__builtin_ms_va_list'
    Which is similar to what happens with gcc versions 4.3 or earlier, so it should be fixable.

    With the 32bit version of wine it fails to find the 32bit development libraries. And if I remove the check it still fails to find any 32bit libraries later (as expected). I'm using a Gentoo multilib setup which is a bit nonstandard, but compiling wine with GCC works fine.
    For 64bit build issues please file a bug report with a reduced testcase. (If you can attach a patch or a lot of details that's awesome)

    For 32bit - let it die (All joking aside a patch would be welcomed as well)

  3. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xir_ View Post
    I am by no means a programmer, or all that experienced with compiling complex software. (disclaimer)

    I use a lot of Fortran code (i know, i know, not my choice), seeing as the Fortran 90/95 are a superset of the Fortran 77 standard will the EKOPath compiler be suitable for my needs?

    Currently the research i'm involved in uses the ifort compiler, but i would always like to move to an opensource alternative.
    Use EKOPath

    1) We may give you better performance (Even Intel on Intel code - you'll have to test though)
    2) We'll likely support everything you need for Fortran now
    3) If you hit trouble there's a community of people to help you

  4. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    That's what I'm hoping. Especially given how freaking horrendously GCC, Clang, and even MSVC totally cocks up with SIMD instructions. (Which I'm told is especially hilarious in MSVC's case given how the Xbox shader compiler works, which is basically the most successful and extreme auto-vectorizing compiler ever.)

    When I have time and the source is fully available, I'm going to dig into this. Compilers are my first love, and I'm really curious to see what techniques EKOPath4 is using.
    The code around the autopar is already out. Check github.com/path64/compiler

    You'd be looking in what we call the "middle end" and for more in-depth answer please post the question on path64-dev, email me personally or drop on by #pathscale - irc.freenode.net to see if one of the engineers can help point you in the right direction

  5. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    Hello.

    Is path64.org going to be the official site of the project? I think the project needs a proper site for promoting in the open source community.

    Other than that, maybe being governed by a corporation instead a community or foundation can scare some people. You know because of certain issues in the past with Open Source and corporate decisions in the past, also because certain ones fork the code for a closed source branch too (CUPS, OOo, Virtualbox?...).

    Regards.
    I think some companies do a good job of handling open source and they aren't all scary acquisition targets.

    We need to update our main website #1 (work-in-progress) and then see what doesn't fit and push the rest to the path64 community site. This way we get the message out the most people. (Someone bug me if this isn't fix this week)

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Codestr0m, I'm curious to know if you guys plan on providing any distro specific packaging? Something like using the openSUSE build service to create native packages for the more popular distros.

  7. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Codestr0m, I'm curious to know if you guys plan on providing any distro specific packaging? Something like using the openSUSE build service to create native packages for the more popular distros.
    path64 is already up on buildservice

    We've fought packaging a ton, received feedback from users and in the end what we have now is likely the best general solution imho.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    While I don't see GCC going anywhere in a hurry, having another compiler suite around is a good thing. I see this as more complementing existing solutions - just as there's some languages better suited to various tasks, there are compilers better suited to various projects. I may have to see about testing this out.

    Sorry if it's already mentioned somewhere, but how's the C++0x support?

  9. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mirv View Post
    While I don't see GCC going anywhere in a hurry, having another compiler suite around is a good thing. I see this as more complementing existing solutions - just as there's some languages better suited to various tasks, there are compilers better suited to various projects. I may have to see about testing this out.

    Sorry if it's already mentioned somewhere, but how's the C++0x support?
    I don't want to mix things up here, but EKOPath probably won't see C++0x for a while. (Maybe next major release, but don't hold me to that)

    ENZO will *maybe* get C++0x around the same time the standard actually becomes an official standard. (Yes we could push it out much sooner, but many people would have to request it tbh)

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by codestr0m View Post
    I don't want to mix things up here, but EKOPath probably won't see C++0x for a while. (Maybe next major release, but don't hold me to that)

    ENZO will *maybe* get C++0x around the same time the standard actually becomes an official standard. (Yes we could push it out much sooner, but many people would have to request it tbh)
    Cheers for the quick response. About what I figured, but never hurts to ask.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •