{bio}[iccifort/2019.1.144] G-PhoCS v1.2.3#7619
Conversation
|
@Micket From the description I feel that performance of this software can be affected by the compiler used to build it. What do you think about building two separate versions, one with |
|
@vanzod I have requested some files to test from the user who wanted the software. I'll update when I have checked. |
|
@vanzod I thought it was going to be I/O bound, but, turns out not (at least for the small test case I got). The intel version was significantly better, so I don't see any need to supply a GCC version. |
|
|
||
| parallel = 1 | ||
|
|
||
| prebuildopts = 'sed -i "/^CC=.*/d" Makefile && ' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Micket What's this for exactly? To make sure the right compiler command is picked up?
That's usually deal with 'cleanly' using:
buildopts = 'CC="$CC"'|
|
||
| prebuildopts = 'sed -i "/^CC=.*/d" Makefile && ' | ||
|
|
||
| files_to_copy = [(['bin/readTrace', 'bin/G-PhoCS-1-2-3'], 'bin')] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The hardcoding of the version here is... annoying. Can we avoid that? Should we rename the binary?
…gs into 20190214163157_new_pr_G-PhoCS123
|
Although this is quite old (and using a deprecated toolchain), it was relatively low effort to get this ready to merge, so I did... |
|
Test report by @boegel |
|
@boegelbot please test @ generoso |
|
@boegel: Request for testing this PR well received on login1 PR test command '
Test results coming soon (I hope)... Details- notification for comment with ID 1152410430 processed Message to humans: this is just bookkeeping information for me, |
|
Test report by @boegelbot |
|
Going in, thanks @Micket! |
(created using
eb --new-pr)