Fix kokkos hpx nvcc compilation

[G-071]

With CUDA 12.3 nvcc does not outright crash anymore when compiling sender-receiver code and with #6452 the HPX sender-receiver examples compile and work again with nvcc after fixing some compilation errors.

The last remaining problem related to this was to compile the Kokkos HPX execution space (using sender-receivers internally) with nvcc: Here we still got a few compilation problems such as:

• member_pack.hpp(143): error: function returning function is not allowed
• split.hpp:289:38: error: use of deleted function ‘hpx::execution::experimental::detail::any_receiver<Ts>::any_receiver(const hpx::execution::experimental::detail::any_receiver<Ts>&) [with Ts = {}]’

This PR addresses these issues!

By itself, this PR is not quite enough to make the HPX execution space compile with nvcc, we still need one more change within Kokkos itself. However, this PR resolves all issues on the HPX side, the rest (some small template deduction stuff) will consequently be added as a Kokkos PR.

Pinging @msimberg as he came up with the solution, I was merely the one reporting the problem and testing the fixes!

[StellarBot]

Performance test report

HPX Performance

Comparison

BENCHMARK	FORK_JOIN_EXECUTOR	PARALLEL_EXECUTOR	SCHEDULER_EXECUTOR
For Each	(=)	(=)	(=)

Info

Property	Before	After
HPX Datetime	2024-03-18T14:00:30+00:00	2024-05-19T14:42:12+00:00
HPX Commit	d27ac2e	77a5577
Compiler	/opt/apps/llvm/13.0.1/bin/clang++ 13.0.1	/opt/apps/llvm/13.0.1/bin/clang++ 13.0.1
Envfile
Clustername	rostam	rostam
Hostname	medusa08.rostam.cct.lsu.edu	medusa08.rostam.cct.lsu.edu
Datetime	2024-03-18T09:18:04.949759-05:00	2024-05-19T09:49:53.894718-05:00

Comparison

BENCHMARK	NO-EXECUTOR
Future Overhead - Create Thread Hierarchical - Latch	(=)

Info

Property	Before	After
HPX Datetime	2024-03-18T14:00:30+00:00	2024-05-19T14:42:12+00:00
HPX Commit	d27ac2e	77a5577
Compiler	/opt/apps/llvm/13.0.1/bin/clang++ 13.0.1	/opt/apps/llvm/13.0.1/bin/clang++ 13.0.1
Envfile
Clustername	rostam	rostam
Hostname	medusa08.rostam.cct.lsu.edu	medusa08.rostam.cct.lsu.edu
Datetime	2024-03-18T09:19:53.062988-05:00	2024-05-19T09:51:38.874577-05:00

Comparison

BENCHMARK	FORK_JOIN_EXECUTOR_DEFAULT_FORK_JOIN_POLICY_ALLOCATOR	PARALLEL_EXECUTOR_DEFAULT_PARALLEL_POLICY_ALLOCATOR	SCHEDULER_EXECUTOR_DEFAULT_SCHEDULER_EXECUTOR_ALLOCATOR
Stream Benchmark - Add	(=)	=	(=)
Stream Benchmark - Scale	(=)	(=)	-
Stream Benchmark - Triad	(=)	(=)	(=)
Stream Benchmark - Copy	(=)	=	=

Info

Property	Before	After
HPX Datetime	2024-03-18T14:00:30+00:00	2024-05-19T14:42:12+00:00
HPX Commit	d27ac2e	77a5577
Compiler	/opt/apps/llvm/13.0.1/bin/clang++ 13.0.1	/opt/apps/llvm/13.0.1/bin/clang++ 13.0.1
Envfile
Clustername	rostam	rostam
Hostname	medusa08.rostam.cct.lsu.edu	medusa08.rostam.cct.lsu.edu
Datetime	2024-03-18T09:20:13.002391-05:00	2024-05-19T09:51:55.378269-05:00

Explanation of Symbols

Symbol	MEANING
=	No performance change (confidence interval within ±1%)
(=)	Probably no performance change (confidence interval within ±2%)
(+)/(-)	Very small performance improvement/degradation (≤1%)
+/-	Small performance improvement/degradation (≤5%)
++/--	Large performance improvement/degradation (≤10%)
+++/---	Very large performance improvement/degradation (>10%)
?	Probably no change, but quite large uncertainty (confidence interval with ±5%)
??	Unclear result, very large uncertainty (±10%)
???	Something unexpected…

[hkaiser]

LGTM, thanks!

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.06%	✅ 50.00%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (0618b4a)	220261	187453	85.10%
Head commit (58ad3dd)	191067 (-29194)	162723 (-24730)	85.17% (+0.06%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#6492)	2	1	50.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

_{Codacy will stop sending the deprecated coverage status from June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[msimberg]

Thanks @G-071! Just out of curiosity, could you check what your CMake configuration says about HPX_HAVE_BUILTIN_FORWARD_MOVE and HPX_HAVE_CXX_LAMBDA_CAPTURE_DECLTYPE, i.e. which version of HPX_FORWARD is your build using?

[G-071]

Thanks @G-071! Just out of curiosity, could you check what your CMake configuration says about HPX_HAVE_BUILTIN_FORWARD_MOVE and HPX_HAVE_CXX_LAMBDA_CAPTURE_DECLTYPE, i.e. which version of HPX_FORWARD is your build using?

@msimberg I had deleted the build directory already, but upon rebuilding HPX and Kokkos the same way, the CMakeCache tells me No and Yes regarding those two:

HPX_WITH_BUILTIN_FORWARD_MOVE:INTERNAL=FALSE
//Result of TRY_COMPILE
HPX_WITH_BUILTIN_FORWARD_MOVE_RESULT:INTERNAL=FALSE

and

HPX_WITH_CXX_LAMBDA_CAPTURE_DECLTYPE:INTERNAL=TRUE
//Result of TRY_COMPILE
HPX_WITH_CXX_LAMBDA_CAPTURE_DECLTYPE_RESULT:INTERNAL=TRUE