SPECFEM/specfem3d

The problem is maybe -arch sm_13 instead of -arch sm_11 in the Makefile, please doublecheck

brioglade opened this issue · 3 comments

Error in setConst_hprime_xx: invalid device symbol

The problem is maybe -arch sm_13 instead of -arch sm_11 in the Makefile, please doublecheck

hi, which line should I uncomment in the makefile? I have the same problem with cuda12.2.

#1327
Screenshot from 2023-12-13 01-22-31

what is the GPU card you're using? check the architecture of the card (Pascal, Volta, Ampere, Hopper, ...) as the gencode should match the architecture, not the CUDA toolkit version:

from the Makefile:

# CUDA architecture / code version
# Fermi   (not supported): -gencode=arch=compute_10,code=sm_10
# Tesla   (Tesla C2050, GeForce GTX 480): -gencode=arch=compute_20,code=sm_20
# Tesla   (cuda4, K10, Geforce GTX 650, GT 650m): -gencode=arch=compute_30,code=sm_30
# Kepler  (cuda5, K20) : -gencode=arch=compute_35,code=sm_35
# Kepler  (cuda6.5, K80): -gencode=arch=compute_37,code=sm_37
# Maxwell (cuda6.5+/cuda7, Quadro K2200): -gencode=arch=compute_50,code=sm_50
# Pascal  (cuda8,P100, GeForce GTX 1080, Titan): -gencode=arch=compute_60,code=sm_60
# Volta   (cuda9, V100): -gencode=arch=compute_70,code=sm_70
# Turing  (cuda10, T4, GeForce RTX 2080): -gencode=arch=compute_75,code=sm_75
# Ampere  (cuda11, A100, GeForce RTX 3080): -gencode=arch=compute_80,code=sm_80
# Hopper  (cuda12, H100): -gencode=arch=compute_90,code=sm_90

for example, if you have an Ampere A100 card, configure the code with the flag --with-cuda=cuda11 even if you have a toolkit version 12.2.

I have the same problem:
Error in setConst_hprime_xx: invalid device symbol
The problem is maybe -arch sm_13 instead of -arch sm_11 in the Makefile, please doublecheck

I am trying to configure with a Quadro P4000, which should be Pascal architecture. I used the following code:

$ ./configure FC=gfortran CC=gcc --with-mpi MPIFC=mpif90 USE_BUNDLED_SCOTCH=1 --with-cuda=cuda8 CUDA_LIB=/usr/local/cuda/lib64
$ make

follow-up responses are here: SPECFEM/specfem2d#1199 (comment)