Skip to content

Implementing a new LLVM based toolchain #4914

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Implementing a new LLVM based toolchain #4914

wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

Crivella
Copy link
Contributor

@Crivella Crivella commented Jun 5, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Compilers

  • New llvm.py compiler taken from the original clang.py and unifying it with flang
    • Now allows defining a list of unsupported flang compiler options based on the passed LLVM version which will be excluded, from the compiler flags

Toolchains

  • LLVMtc: Similar to GCC uses bot GCCcore and SYSTEM as a subtoolchain
  • Lfbf equivalent of Gfbf
  • Lompi equivalent of Gompi
  • LFoss equivalent of Foss
    • Does not have the OpenBLAS child class as in Foss it is used only for toolchains older than 2021.0

TODO

  • Extensively investigate+test the comments related to the compiler flags on the old clang.py compiler
  • Extensively test interplay of compilations with libstdc++ and possibly libc++
  • Interplay between LLVM and CUDA / ROCm
  • Possibly have variants of LLVM like ROCm-LLVM work through the same toolchain

This was referenced Jun 5, 2025
Open
Open
@boegel boegel added this to the 5.x milestone Jun 6, 2025
@Crivella
Copy link
Contributor Author

d6fe4f9

Apparently some tests were failing because xlompi is an actual toolchain and the test was using 'x' as an prefix to check that a toolchain with wrong name should not be found

@Crivella Crivella changed the title WIP: Implementing a new LLVM based toolchain Implementing a new LLVM based toolchain Jun 18, 2025
@Crivella Crivella marked this pull request as ready for review June 18, 2025 08:50
@Crivella Crivella mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2025
Draft
@boegel boegel modified the milestones: 5.x, release after 5.1.1 Jul 3, 2025
@Crivella Crivella force-pushed the exp-LLVMtoolchain branch from d6fe4f9 to bb62f27 Compare July 10, 2025 09:50
@Zeldhoron Zeldhoron mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2025
Draft
hattom
hattom reviewed Sep 26, 2025
View reviewed changes
easybuild/toolchains/compiler/llvm.py


class LLVM(Compiler):
"""Compiler toolchain with Clang and GFortran compilers."""
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"GFortran" was copy/pasted from somewhere else?
This one should be Clang + flang, no?

hattom
hattom reviewed Sep 26, 2025
View reviewed changes
easybuild/toolchains/compiler/llvm.py

if unsupported_fortran_flags is not None:
self.log.debug(
f"Ensuring usupported Fortran flags `{unsupported_fortran_flags}` are removed from variables"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"unsupported"

hattom
hattom reviewed Sep 26, 2025
View reviewed changes
easybuild/toolchains/lfoss.py


class LFoss(Lompi, FlexiBLAS, ScaLAPACK, Fftw):
"""Compiler toolchain with GCC, OpenMPI, FlexiBLAS, ScaLAPACK and FFTW."""
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"GCC" -> "LLVM", right?

hattom
hattom reviewed Sep 26, 2025
View reviewed changes
easybuild/toolchains/lompi.py


class Lompi(LLVMtc, OpenMPI):
"""Compiler toolchain with GCC and OpenMPI."""
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

GCC -> LLVM?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
1 more reviewer

@hattom hattom hattom left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
next release (5.2.0?)
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@Crivella @hattom @boegel