Skip to content

Use fypp instead of C preprocessor for Macro expansion #1073

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Draft
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Use fypp instead of C preprocessor for Macro expansion #1073

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

@prathi-wind
Copy link
Contributor

@prathi-wind prathi-wind commented Dec 1, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Description

Replace most macro expansions to use the fypp preprocessor instead of the C preprocessor
Also cleaned up some the if defs for conditional compilation

Using fypp makes build files much easier to read and clearly indicates what options were activated.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Something else

Scope

  • This PR comprises a set of related changes with a common goal

If you cannot check the above box, please split your PR into multiple PRs that each have a common goal.

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes.
Provide instructions so we can reproduce.
Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

  • Test A
  • Test B

Test Configuration:

  • What computers and compilers did you use to test this:

Checklist

  • I have added comments for the new code
  • I added Doxygen docstrings to the new code
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (docs/)
  • I have added regression tests to the test suite so that people can verify in the future that the feature is behaving as expected
  • I have added example cases in examples/ that demonstrate my new feature performing as expected.
    They run to completion and demonstrate "interesting physics"
  • I ran ./mfc.sh format before committing my code
  • New and existing tests pass locally with my changes, including with GPU capability enabled (both NVIDIA hardware with NVHPC compilers and AMD hardware with CRAY compilers) and disabled
  • This PR does not introduce any repeated code (it follows the DRY principle)
  • I cannot think of a way to condense this code and reduce any introduced additional line count

If your code changes any code source files (anything in src/simulation)

To make sure the code is performing as expected on GPU devices, I have:

  • Checked that the code compiles using NVHPC compilers
  • Checked that the code compiles using CRAY compilers
  • Ran the code on either V100, A100, or H100 GPUs and ensured the new feature performed as expected (the GPU results match the CPU results)
  • Ran the code on MI200+ GPUs and ensure the new features performed as expected (the GPU results match the CPU results)
  • Enclosed the new feature via nvtx ranges so that they can be identified in profiles
  • Ran a Nsight Systems profile using ./mfc.sh run XXXX --gpu -t simulation --nsys, and have attached the output file (.nsys-rep) and plain text results to this PR
  • Ran a Rocprof Systems profile using ./mfc.sh run XXXX --gpu -t simulation --rsys --hip-trace, and have attached the output file and plain text results to this PR.
  • Ran my code using various numbers of different GPUs (1, 2, and 8, for example) in parallel and made sure that the results scale similarly to what happens if you run without the new code/feature

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 1, 2025

Important

Review skipped

Draft detected.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 1, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 53.33333% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 41.66%. Comparing base (9d283e5) to head (ad972e6).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/simulation/m_fftw.fpp 54.54% 10 Missing ⚠️
src/simulation/m_cbc.fpp 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
src/common/m_chemistry.fpp 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
src/common/m_nvtx.fpp 80.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1073      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   44.16%   41.66%   -2.51%     
==========================================
  Files          71       71              
  Lines       20197    20701     +504     
  Branches     1970     2627     +657     
==========================================
- Hits         8921     8626     -295     
- Misses      10148    10411     +263     
- Partials     1128     1664     +536

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@prathi-wind