Add support for amdgcn-capabilities configuration option and amdgcn_capabilities easyconfig parameter + related templates, similar to cuda-compute-capabilities

[Thyre]

Summary

This PR aims to implement a similar option to cuda-compute-capabilities (and related options) for AMD GPUs.
The option can then replace the manual handling done in some EasyBlocks, e.g. Clang & LLVM, allowing to enable (some) GPU builds without the need to alter the EasyConfig.

Most of the handling was copied from CUDA, while some options were skipped as they don't make much sense, e.g. cuda_cc_space_sep_no_period.

The used regex should support all GPU architectures starting from gfx600, including the more recent generic targets.
Actual compiler support then needs to be present in the compiler consuming these architectures. Both GCC and LLVM accept the same naming, i.e. gfx[...], including generic targets.

---

Missing features compared to CUDA

• cuda_cache_dir option is missing. I haven't found something similar for HIP yet, but may simply have missed it
• "int only" options are missing, though hard to provide with generic targets and targets like gfx90a
  • Maybe a target without gfx?

More to be determined.

Known issues

• The regex for generic targets is not perfect, allowing e.g. gfx10--generic to pass, even though it is not allowed.

---

Resolves #4829

[Thyre]

Started to create a test set of EasyConfig & EasyBlock changes to test the option, starting with LLVM & CMake...
The next logical step would be to build some HIP application with CMake, and maybe try something more special like AdaptiveCpp. I'll use a system ROCm for this, but at the end, everything should also work with an EB built ROCm.

Let's see if this works the way I expect.

https://github.com/Thyre/easybuild-custom/tree/support-passing-amdgcn

[Micket]

lgtm

I really don't have any hardware to test any of this on. I trust you have tested this quite a bit?

[Micket]

We are hitting rate limits (again?)
We need to rethink those frameworks tests. Bunch of issues like this

ERROR: test_fetch_easyconfigs_from_commit (test.framework.github.GithubTest)
Test fetch_easyconfigs_from_commit function.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/tmp/runner/a2a179c7e5ef5c3a44bda1281d10211f5940d494/lib/python3.8/site-packages/test/framework/github.py", line 561, in test_fetch_easyconfigs_from_commit
    res = fetch_easyconfigs_from_commit(test_commit)
  File "/tmp/runner/a2a179c7e5ef5c3a44bda1281d10211f5940d494/lib/python3.8/site-packages/easybuild/tools/github.py", line 807, in fetch_easyconfigs_from_commit
    return fetch_files_from_commit(commit, files=files, path=path, github_repo=GITHUB_EASYCONFIGS_REPO)
  File "/tmp/runner/a2a179c7e5ef5c3a44bda1281d10211f5940d494/lib/python3.8/site-packages/easybuild/tools/github.py", line 748, in fetch_files_from_commit
    raise EasyBuildError(error_msg, exit_code=EasyBuildExit.FAIL_GITHUB)
easybuild.tools.build_log.EasyBuildError: 'Failed to download diff for easybuilders/easybuild-easyconfigs commit 6515b44cd84a20fe7876cb4bdaf3c0080e688566! (HTTP Error 403: rate limit exceeded)'

[Thyre]

lgtm

I really don't have any hardware to test any of this on. I trust you have tested this quite a bit?

I've basically used this to build all of the ROCm software on two separate machines which I'm trying to bring to EasyBuild (after my vacation).

You'll find quite a few test reports from my Arch Linux machine (or jrc0850) with the config parameter being in the config.

Some test reports:

• move openmp to a runtime in newer versions of LLVM easybuild-easyblocks#3799 (comment)
• {vis}[GCCcore/14.2.0] LLVM v20.1.7, Mesa v25.1.3, lit v18.1.8, ... easybuild-easyconfigs#23144 (comment)
• {vis}[GCCcore/14.2.0] LLVM v20.1.7, Mesa v25.1.3, lit v18.1.8, ... easybuild-easyconfigs#23144 (comment)

What I haven‘t explicitly tested (again) is using the generic targets, also because they‘re still quite new in ROCm.
Let me try that (and explicitly passing nothing to ensure that e.g. LLVM 19 works with ’gfx1201` in the config file) works as expected. That will have to wait until next week though.

[Micket]

OK so i'll let you also test that before merging then? I'll also be away traveling after this week, so if anyone else wants to hit merge please go ahead.

[Thyre]

Yeah, I'll test those things once I'm back home. If everything works, I'll ping in our merge-sprint channel 😄

[Thyre]

I don't know how we could test this in the test suite itself, but this is the result with our regex pattern now:

 jreuter@Linux  ~  eb --amdgcn-capabilities= GCC-14.3.0.eb --rebuild 1>/dev/null               
 jreuter@Linux  ~  eb --amdgcn-capabilities=gfx1101,gfx1201 GCC-14.3.0.eb --rebuild 1>/dev/null
 jreuter@Linux  ~  eb --amdgcn-capabilities=gfx11-generic,gfx1201 GCC-14.3.0.eb --rebuild 1>/dev/null
 jreuter@Linux  ~  eb --amdgcn-capabilities=gfx10-4-generic,gfx1201 GCC-14.3.0.eb --rebuild 1>/dev/null
 jreuter@Linux  ~  eb --amdgcn-capabilities=gfx10--generic,gfx1201 GCC-14.3.0.eb --rebuild 1>/dev/null
ERROR: Failed to parse configuration options: "Found problems validating the options: Incorrect values in --amdgcn-capabilities (expected pattern: 'gfx[0-9]+[a-z]?$' or 'gfx[0-9]+(\\-[0-9])?-generic$'): gfx10--generic"
 ✘ jreuter@Linux  ~  eb --amdgcn-capabilities=gfx--generic,gfx1201 GCC-14.3.0.eb --rebuild 1>/dev/null  
ERROR: Failed to parse configuration options: "Found problems validating the options: Incorrect values in --amdgcn-capabilities (expected pattern: 'gfx[0-9]+[a-z]?$' or 'gfx[0-9]+(\\-[0-9])?-generic$'): gfx--generic"
 ✘ jreuter@Linux  ~  eb --amdgcn-capabilities=foobar GCC-14.3.0.eb --rebuild 1>/dev/null
ERROR: Failed to parse configuration options: "Found problems validating the options: Incorrect values in --amdgcn-capabilities (expected pattern: 'gfx[0-9]+[a-z]?$' or 'gfx[0-9]+(\\-[0-9])?-generic$'): foobar"

[Crivella]

I don't know how we could test this in the test suite itself, but this is the result with our regex pattern now:

Yeah played around with it a little bit but every function i tried really does not seem to want to run the validate method 😅

[Crivella]

LGTM

[Crivella]

Going in, thanks @Thyre!