-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
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
How best to handle cpptraj vs. cpptraj.{MPI,OMP,cuda} #1123
Comments
This is definitely something that should be clarified in the manual.
This can certainly be done. I originally used the If we did decide to just go with the "one executable to rule them all" route, I think the current CMAKE build process would need to be modified so that |
if cpptraj is also distributed via conda, it's hard to tell if cpptraj is compiled with what, so explicit extension seems clearer to me. |
I wonder if the cpptraj distributed with conda should just be called cpptraj.conda? Maybe that's just compounding the original issue though. |
So user has to change their script to specify either cpptraj or cpptraj.conda depending on if install via ambertools or cpptraj conda :D |
sounds good. I forgot about this. |
The Amber24 Reference Manual describes MPI and OMP parallelization, but is not very clear about which executables do what. For example, if I configure (using the Makefile) with the -openmp flag, the executable that is created is called
cpptraj.OMP
. As far as I can see, the Reference Manual doesn't indicate that one needs to call cpptraj.OMP to get this behavior. And the AmberTools installation doesn't build cpptraj.OMP by default.One idea, based on limited info: asking for -openmp or -cuda would still create an executable called
cpptraj
, but that had those capabilities. (Openmp could be turned off by setting OMP_NUM_THREADS.) There is probably still a need for cpptraj.MPI, since it has to be initiated via mpirun.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: