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.
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
{lang}[iimkl/2022b] SciPy-bundle v2023.02 w/ Python 3.10.8 #17539
{lang}[iimkl/2022b] SciPy-bundle v2023.02 w/ Python 3.10.8 #17539
Conversation
Test report by @boegel |
Test report by @jfgrimm |
Is there any hope of SciPy becoming available for the intel/2022b toolchain, or are there showstopper issues? |
@schiotz haven't had time to look into the test failures with intel. Our site has had no interest in the intel variants of SciPy-bundle so it's not high on my priority list |
Both Changing the My site is simlar to @jfgrimm - the most recent Intel compiler based |
Thanks for your comments. Yes, our problem here is also that we only have a fully functional stack of scientific software supported on both foss and intel in the 2020b toolchain, and would like a newer scipy. Everything we do is Python based. But for now we may stick with that toolchain. (The merge of foss and fosscuda would also be nice to use.) |
Maybe we should just try and pinpoint the tests that triggers the segfault, and patch it out? |
Just to add that we're also very interested in a |
Just to make this a bit more clear: the reason this is currently blocked is because Python crashes hard with a segmentation fault when running the test suite:
|
When I empty
I'm inclined to ignore these failing tests, by creating a patch that not only removes I did a similar experiment with a draft easyconfig for
|
Maybe there are some clues in scipy/scipy#17075, but that info looks a bit outdated |
From that link, looks like it might be worth |
Tried with |
closing this, not planning to pursue it, focus is on |
(created using
eb --new-pr
)