Charm++ parallel programming system

[Jozsef Bakosi <jbakosi AT gmail.com>]

tag v6.7.1 at bdf6a1b on Fri Apr 15 16:07:34 2016

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Phil Miller <mille121 AT illinois.edu> wrote:

Just as a check, what version of Charm++ is this? One of the 6.7 releases, or some more recent git commit?

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Jozsef Bakosi <jbakosi AT gmail.com> wrote:

Alright, here is what I have found.

The problem can be reproduced with the unmodified example in charm/examples/charm++/reductions/typed_reduction, which segfaults at the same memcpy, tested with valgrind, only on cray, linux/openmpi is fine).

It only segfaults with the gcc/6.1.0 cray module and only if any optimization is used: i.e., -O0 is okay, -O[123] fails.

Swapping the gcc module to gcc/5.3.0 solves the problem: both debug and opt buld are fine with this earlier gcc version.

PrgEnv-intel/6.0.3 is also fine (only tried -O3).

A side question: Is it safe to reduce a uint64_t using CkReduction::sum_int? It appears to be so, but I'd like to be sure.

Jozsef

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Phil Miller <mille121 AT illinois.edu> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Jozsef Bakosi <jbakosi AT gmail.com> wrote:

- What build configuration are you using on the Cray system? gni-crayxc? mpi-crayxc? smp or no? The full ./build command line would be useful, along with output from 'module list'

No smp. The build command and modules:

$ build charm++ mpi-crayxc --with-production -j40 -O3 -DNDEBUG

As you explore further, could you test out a build without the optimization flags above, and with -g? It would be useful to know if this is a case where compiler optimizations are changing behavior - likely indicating that the code is doing something invalid in the vicinity, but potentially a compiler bug.

In the same vein, could you try with an earlier version of the gcc module loaded, maybe a 4.8.x or 4.9.x? Or with Intel's compiler and corresponding PrgEnv-intel module?