Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update AOCC easyblock to work with LLVM 16 and above #3437

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

maxim-masterov
Copy link
Contributor

See Issue #3429

Comment on lines +70 to +73
# Starting from LLVM v16, the folder naming is based on the major version of clang.
if LooseVersion(self.clangversion) >= LooseVersion('16.0.0'):
self.clangversion = '16'

Copy link
Contributor

@Thyre Thyre Sep 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will break once AOCC updates to a newer Clang version. In addition, updating the clangversion to the major version only feels not correct. This is only needed for the sanity check. Therefore, such conversion should only be done where necessary.

In the Clang EasyBlock, the conversion is done during the sanity check. We should be able to mostly copy the code. I've posted a draft for AOCC in the issue for this EasyBlock (#3429 (comment)), but didn't have the time to create a PR and test it.

# Starting from LLVM v16, the folder naming is based on the major version of clang.
if LooseVersion(self.clangversion) >= LooseVersion('16.0.0'):
self.clangversion = '16'

def _aocc_guess_clang_version(self):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should update the list with known AOCC versions, since this simplifies writing the respective EasyConfigs

@boegel
Copy link
Member

boegel commented Sep 25, 2024

Is this superseded by #3458?

@maxim-masterov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@boegel I would say - yes. The solution from @Thyre is more elegant.

@maxim-masterov
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing in favor of #3458

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants