Skip to content

Conversation

@victorapm
Copy link
Contributor

@victorapm victorapm commented Sep 24, 2025

  • Update spack to v1.0.2 and internally distributed spack packages accordingly.
  • Update uberenv to develop as of Sep/25
  • Remove internally distributed hdf5 and trilinos spack packages. Instead. rely on spack_packages (upstream)
  • Add 2025.09.0 RAJA/CHAI/Umpire/Camp suite
  • Add Ubuntu 24.04 + gcc 13.3.0 + ROCm 6.4.3 Docker image

TPL_DOCKERFILE: docker/Stanford/Dockerfile
DOCKER_ROOT_IMAGE: matteofrigo5/sherlock-gcc10.1.0-openmpi4.1.2-cuda12.4.0-openblas0.3.10-zlib1.2.11-cmake3.31.4-no-geosx:0.0.1
SPEC: "%[email protected]~pygeosx~openmp"
SPEC: "~pygeosx~openmp %c,cxx,fortran=[email protected]"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why was this required?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here also, that's the new way spack v1 is handling compilers. See https://github.com/spack/spack/releases#compiler-dependencies

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
spack:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we should not use centos anymore. rocky is the replacement for rhel builds.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good! That simplifies things

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I assume I can remove the centos build then, otherwise let me know :)


gcc:
externals:
- spec: [email protected] languages:='c,c++,fortran'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

isn't the default to install all languages?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think so, but this was recommended somewhere in the documentation files that I was reading for spack. @bmhan12 could you confirm what is the best thing to do here?

Copy link
Contributor

@bmhan12 bmhan12 Oct 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think so, but this was recommended somewhere in the documentation files that I was reading for spack. @bmhan12 could you confirm what is the best thing to do here?

With Spack 1.0, that is the correct way now to specify compilers (compilers are now treated as packages).

However, in addition, if you want to make sure Spack picks your external compiler like we have set before Spack 1.0, you need to add toolchain(s): https://spack.readthedocs.io/en/latest/toolchains_yaml.html

I have a wip branch working through the Spack 1.0/toolchain changes here: https://github.com/GEOS-DEV/thirdPartyLibs/tree/feature/han12/spack_v1_noapi

Comment on lines +28 to +45
gcc:
externals:
- spec: [email protected] languages:='c,c++,fortran'
prefix: /opt/rh/gcc-toolset-13/root/usr/
extra_attributes:
compilers:
c: /opt/rh/gcc-toolset-13/root/usr/bin/gcc
cxx: /opt/rh/gcc-toolset-13/root/usr/bin/g++
fortran: /opt/rh/gcc-toolset-13/root/usr/bin/gfortran
clang:
externals:
- spec: clang@17 languages:='c,c++'
prefix: /usr
extra_attributes:
compilers:
c: /usr/bin/clang-17
cxx: /usr/bin/clang++-17

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What is the reason for the change?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's the new way spack v1 is handling compilers. More info here: https://github.com/spack/spack/releases#compiler-dependencies

@victorapm
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this in favor of #324, #325 and #326

@victorapm victorapm closed this Oct 4, 2025
@victorapm victorapm deleted the feature/rocm-ci branch October 4, 2025 18:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants