SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A comparison between SnapGene Vs. Genome Compiler Rutia General 0 08-23-2015 03:31 AM
Intel Xeon Phi co-processors - Supercomputer on a chip GenoMax General 17 06-04-2015 06:31 AM
Compiling Cufflinks 2.0.2 with gcc 4.7 rwan Bioinformatics 1 02-17-2013 08:25 AM
Warning while installing BEDtools pi101 Bioinformatics 2 05-11-2011 02:57 PM
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 versus 3.1GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5 brachysclereid Bioinformatics 2 05-03-2011 05:31 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-15-2016, 10:12 AM   #1
biocomputer
Member
 
Location: Canada

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 62
Question Installing bedtools, intel vs gcc compiler

I'm installing Bedtools for myself on a HPC cluster, the Bedtools website indicates it uses the GCC compiler while the cluster I'm working on uses the Intel compiler by default and says GCC is not recommended (but is available) on the cluster. What is the best way to install Bedtools in this situation?
  1. If I use the default Intel compiler and leave the makefile with g++, it starts off fine then there's an error and it exits with "This Intel <math.h> is for use with only the Intel compilers".
  2. If I use the default Intel compiler and change the Bedtools makefile (I think I'm editing this correctly) "export CXX" line from "g++" to "icc", I get over 1000 warnings but Bedtools seems to install fine (the few Bedtools tests I ran worked).
  3. If I load the gcc 5.3.0 compiler and make Bedtools (using the original makefile with "export CXX = g++") I get about 15 warnings but it seems to install properly.
  4. If I load the gcc 5.3.0 compiler and change the Bedtools makefile "export CXX" line from "g++" to "icc", it exits almost immediately with an error ("icc: Command not found").

#1 and 4 don't complete as I expected, #3 seems the best, should I use #3 or do something else? I can provide the errors/output from make if that would help.

Last edited by biocomputer; 03-15-2016 at 10:23 AM.
biocomputer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 10:21 AM   #2
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,077
Default

For #3 are those actual errors or "warnings"? If it is the latter then #3 may be fine.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 10:23 AM   #3
biocomputer
Member
 
Location: Canada

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 62
Default

Ah those are warnings not errors, I corrected the original post.

Here's the output from #3:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...205.3.0%29.txt

Last edited by biocomputer; 03-15-2016 at 10:27 AM.
biocomputer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2016, 05:35 PM   #4
Richard Finney
Senior Member
 
Location: bethesda

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 700
Default

The warning messages are probably not going to cause a problem.
The "set but not used" messages are probably harmless.
The 'signed/unsigned comparison" is probably not a big deal; unless the chromosome size is greater than 2,147,483,647 bases.

You are unlikely to find one that big.

This biostar thread https://www.biostars.org/p/12560/ says that there's a species of wheat that has a chromosome that's bigger.
Richard Finney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2016, 05:28 AM   #5
jmarshall
Samtools maintainer
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 39
Default

Re #2, compiling bedtools 2.25.0 with Intel's icpc (ICC) 15.0.0 20140723 I got only a handful of trivial warnings (see https://github.com/arq5x/bedtools2/pull/382). If your warnings are similar, I suspect an ICC-compiled bedtools is fine.
jmarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO