[mpich-discuss] Very long configuration time

Rob Latham robl at mcs.anl.gov
Wed May 21 20:26:05 CDT 2014

On 05/21/2014 03:35 PM, Yida Wang wrote:
> I have to use icc since I want to run code on Intel Xeon Phi. Also, I
> tried to install MPICH2 since it claims to support Intel-MIC
> architecture and is open source.

long ago, autoconf used to support a local cache.  sadly, that appears 
not to work, despite the continued presence of a --cache-file command 
line parameter.  It was perfect for just these kinds of situations: for 
but one example, mpich looks for stdint.h twice.


> BTW, still configuring. It's faster to do it locally (both the source
> code and the Intel compiler), but encountered a Fortran type length
> detection error (don't remember the exact error information now, it
> recommended me to "Consider setting CROSS_F77_SIZEOF_INTEGER to the
> length in bytes of a Fortran INTEGER") last run.

> Thanks,
> YW
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org
> <mailto:jed at jedbrown.org>> wrote:
>     Kenneth Raffenetti <raffenet at mcs.anl.gov
>     <mailto:raffenet at mcs.anl.gov>> writes:
>      > The Intel compilers could also be a source of slowdown. Are they
>      > installed on a network filesystem? They may also call out to a
>     network
>      > license server each time they are invoked for a compile test.
>     Does just
>      > compiling a small program take a long time with icc, ifort, etc.?
>     The system headers and libraries are also often on a network file
>     system.  Although moving the source tree to a local disk usually
>     provides some improvement, I rarely find it getting anywhere close to
>     the performance of a cheap laptop because most of the file accesses
>     performed by the compiler are hitting the network anyway.  This is the
>     price we all pay for legacy file system semantics and dumb compiler
>     architecture.  I think most companies in a place to change these things
>     do full local installs on their development boxes so that compilation is
>     fast.  And the HPC vendors wear blindfolds and put their heads in the
>     sand.
>     As for Intel license servers, this is the price you pay for anti-piracy
>     measures.  People that are really ticked off by this crack their
>     compilers---the pirates enjoy a better user experience.  Is it ethical
>     to use a cracked version if you've already paid for the licensed
>     version?
>     Besides those issues, the Intel compiler usually takes a lot longer to
>     compile.  It's worth building with gcc and clang to compare.  You might
>     be pleasantly surprised to find that in addition to compiling faster,
>     your code also runs faster (this is the case for several applications I
>     work with).
>     _______________________________________________
>     discuss mailing list discuss at mpich.org <mailto:discuss at mpich.org>
>     To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>     https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Rob Latham
Mathematics and Computer Science Division
Argonne National Lab, IL USA

More information about the discuss mailing list