Project

General

Profile

Task #3297

Require gcc > 5

Added by Eric Irrgang about 1 month ago. Updated about 1 month ago.

Status:
Accepted
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
build system
Difficulty:
uncategorized
Close

Description

Required gcc version was updated to 5.1 for C++14 support. Is it too harsh to update the requirement to 6+ only a year later?

Note that supported distributions that ship with gcc < 6 will likely have gcc >= 6 packages available already. See, for instance, https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/ubuntu/test


Subtasks

Task #3041: Remove workaround for gcc bug 58265New

Associated revisions

Revision 36a65816 (diff)
Added by Berk Hess about 1 month ago

Fix multisim with parallel simulation

mdrun -multisim with more than one rank per simulation would stop
with a fatal error due to using a partially initialized
gmx_multisim_t in GpuTaskAssignmentsBuilder::build().

Fixes #3297

Change-Id: Idfe24110908dc8cad29cd9a0eac7233fca4102f9

History

#1 Updated by Mark Abraham about 1 month ago

IIRC we were a little pushy with the bumps to requirements for GROMACS 2020. That doesn't mean we can't make minor increases, but I think we should have a clear advantage demonstrated

#2 Updated by Roland Schulz about 1 month ago

Would it make sense to skip GCC 6 and directly require GCC 7 in a year or two? That then would allow us to switch to C++17. AFAIK, all other (CPU) compiler would allow us to switch to C++17 already now.

#3 Updated by Eric Irrgang about 1 month ago

  • Parent task deleted (#3047)

Roland Schulz wrote:

Would it make sense to skip GCC 6 and directly require GCC 7 in a year or two? That then would allow us to switch to C++17. AFAIK, all other (CPU) compiler would allow us to switch to C++17 already now.

That sounds like reasonable timing and good justification.

I will update #3047 with this proposal and remove it as a parent issue.

How do we create new "Target version" milestones? It wouldn't hurt to have 2022-infrastructure-stable to tracl things that are definitely planned but definitely deferred. Otherwise, should this issue be targeted to null or to "future"?

#4 Updated by Berk Hess about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from Feedback wanted to Resolved

#5 Updated by Eric Irrgang about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Accepted

Also available in: Atom PDF