Resolves building issues (WRF/WRF-chem) with Intel compilers (ifx/icx) #1942

ahheo · 2023-11-28T08:24:26Z

Resolving building issues with Intel compilers (ifx/icx) for WRF/WRF-chem

TYPE: bug fix

KEYWORDS: Missing/Wrong Prototypes

SOURCE: Changgui Lin

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
Problem:
Problem: Most C code written long ago. No prototypes were used. See #1823. And, this pr is kind of an extension to #1823 addressing the same issue for building WRF-chem.

Solution:
Add missing prototypes; rearrange function order.

LIST OF MODIFIED FILES: list of changed files (use git diff --name-status master to get formatted list)
modified: arch/configure.defaults
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/code.c
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/code.h
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/code_c.c
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/code_f77.c
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/code_f90.c
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/code_matlab.c
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/gdata.h
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/gen.c
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/gen_org.c
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/kpp.c
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/scan.h
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/scan.l
modified: chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/scan.y
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/Makefile
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/change_chem_Makefile.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/compare_kpp_to_species.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/gen_kpp.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/gen_kpp_args_to_Update_Rconst.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/gen_kpp_interf_utils.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/gen_kpp_interface.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/gen_kpp_mech_dr.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/gen_kpp_utils.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/get_kpp_chem_specs.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/get_wrf_jvals.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/get_wrf_radicals.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/kpp_data.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/protos_kpp.h
modified: chem/KPP/util/wkc/registry_kpp.c
modified: chem/KPP/util/write_decomp/integr_edit.c
modified: compile
modified: external/RSL_LITE/buf_for_proc.c
modified: external/RSL_LITE/c_code.c
modified: external/RSL_LITE/cycle.c
modified: external/RSL_LITE/gen_comms.c
modified: external/RSL_LITE/period.c
modified: external/RSL_LITE/rsl_bcast.c
modified: external/RSL_LITE/rsl_lite.h
modified: external/RSL_LITE/rsl_malloc.c
modified: external/RSL_LITE/swap.c
modified: external/RSL_LITE/task_for_point.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/FTP_getfile.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/gribfuncs.h
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/gribgetbds.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/gribhdr2file.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/init_enc_struct.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/init_gribhdr.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/init_struct.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/ld_enc_input.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/ld_enc_lookup.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/ld_grib_origctrs.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/map_lvl.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/map_parm.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/prt_badmsg.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/prt_inp_struct.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/set_bytes.c
modified: external/io_grib1/MEL_grib1/upd_child_errmsg.c
modified: external/io_grib1/grib1_routines.c
modified: external/io_grib1/grib1_util/read_grib.c
modified: external/io_grib1/grib1_util/read_grib.h
modified: external/io_grib1/grib1_util/write_grib.c
modified: external/io_grib1/gribmap.c
modified: external/io_grib1/gribmap.h
modified: external/io_grib1/trim.c
new file: external/io_grib1/trim.h
modified: external/io_grib_share/get_region_center.c
modified: external/io_grib_share/open_file.c
modified: frame/pack_utils.c
modified: tools/Makefile
modified: tools/gen_config.c
modified: tools/gen_interp.c
modified: tools/gen_irr_diag.c
modified: tools/gen_streams.c
modified: tools/gen_wrf_io.c
modified: tools/misc.c
modified: tools/protos.h
modified: tools/reg_parse.c
modified: tools/sym.c
modified: tools/sym.h
modified: tools/symtab_gen.c

weiwangncar · 2023-11-29T11:54:58Z

arch/configure.defaults

+SCC = icx # icc
+CCOMP = icx # icc
+DM_FC = mpiifx #mpif90 -f90=$(SFC)
+DM_CC = mpiicx #mpicc -cc=$(SCC)


@ahheo Should not change this option. Add another option like it is in PR#1893.

OK. Well, what should I do with this PR for the next step? Should I convert it as a draft and make a new commit and submit this PR again?

@ahheo Please continue to modify this PR.

@weiwangncar I have made this modification following your suggestion: restoring the changed option and adding another option as PR #1893 , by another commit 7361882. Well, the commit still failed in WRF regression test, and I was not able to check the details. Sorry that this is my first time making a PR, and I am still learning the procedures to make things work.

@ahheo The failure of the regression tests is not your fault. We currently have some trouble running the tests on the Cloud. We are working to resolve the issues.

weiwangncar · 2023-11-29T12:01:39Z

@ahheo Can we assume that your changes are limited in chem/KPP/ directory, while the rest is identical to that in PR#1823?

ahheo · 2023-11-30T02:58:52Z

@ahheo Can we assume that your changes are limited in chem/KPP/ directory, while the rest is identical to that in PR#1823?

Well, you might, in principle, assume this. But, to make it precisely, it is worth mentioning that I also made some modifications dealing with the following compilation warnings:
warning: for loop has empty body [-Wempty-body]
warning: format string is not a string literal (potentially insecure) [-Wformat-security]
warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of this bitwise operator [-Wlogical-not-parentheses]
Should I mention these in the revised PR?

weiwangncar · 2023-11-30T08:39:22Z

@ahheo Can we assume that your changes are limited in chem/KPP/ directory, while the rest is identical to that in PR#1823?

Well, you might, in principle, assume this. But, to make it precisely, it is worth mentioning that I also made some modifications dealing with the following compilation warnings: warning: for loop has empty body [-Wempty-body] warning: format string is not a string literal (potentially insecure) [-Wformat-security] warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of this bitwise operator [-Wlogical-not-parentheses] Should I mention these in the revised PR?

@ahheo It would be helpful if you identify the routines you modified in addition to those modified in PR#1823, and explain why you need to modify them.

weiwangncar · 2023-12-05T12:23:41Z

The regression test results:

Test Type              | Expected  | Received |  Failed
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = =
Number of Tests        : 23           24
Number of Builds       : 60           57
Number of Simulations  : 158           150        0
Number of Comparisons  : 95           86        0

Failed Simulations are: 
None
Which comparisons are not bit-for-bit: 
None

weiwangncar · 2023-12-05T12:24:10Z

@ahheo It would be helpful if you identify the routines you modified in addition to those modified in PR#1823, and explain why you need to modify them.

weiwangncar · 2023-12-06T07:47:24Z

@ahheo I tried to use Intel oneAPI to compile WRF-Chem + KPP, it failed. It worked when compiling KPP only. Have you tried to compile WRF-Chem and KPP? I also verified that your modification still works for compiling WRF along.

ahheo · 2023-12-06T12:54:49Z

@ahheo I tried to use Intel oneAPI to compile WRF-Chem + KPP, it failed. It worked when compiling KPP only. Have you tried to compile WRF-Chem and KPP? I also verified that your modification still works for compiling WRF along.

@weiwangncar, yes, I compiled with WRF_CHEM=1 together with WRF_KPP=1 using ifx / icx / mpiifx / mpiicx successfully, (and also successfully using ifx / icx / mpif90 -fc ifx / mpicc -cc icx). It would be nice if you can provide the compile log.

weiwangncar · 2023-12-07T03:34:29Z

@ahheo Here are the steps I took to compile your branch:

clone your branch and check out branch CL_test
on our HPC, use intel-oneapi/2023.0.0 module
set environtment variables:

setenv WRF_EM_CORE 1
setenv WRF_CHEM 1
setenv WRF_KPP 1
setenv FLEX_LIB_DIR /usr/lib64
setenv YACC '/usr/bin/yacc -d'

configure using option 78 (icx/ifx, dmpar)
compile using 'compile em_real' >& make78chemkpp.txt

Here is the log file.
make78chemkpp.txt

ahheo · 2023-12-07T05:16:28Z

@ahheo Here are the steps I took to compile your branch:

clone your branch and check out branch CL_test

on our HPC, use intel-oneapi/2023.0.0 module

set environtment variables:
setenv WRF_EM_CORE 1
setenv WRF_CHEM 1
setenv WRF_KPP 1
setenv FLEX_LIB_DIR /usr/lib64
setenv YACC '/usr/bin/yacc -d'
configure using option 78 (icx/ifx, dmpar)

compile using 'compile em_real' >& make78chemkpp.txt

Here is the log file. make78chemkpp.txt

@weiwangncar the compile problem is due to the failure in finding libfl.a. I found the following lines in your make log:

No libfl.a in /usr/lib64
check if FLEX_LIB_DIR environment variable is set correctly
(FLEX_LIB_DIR should be the complete pathname of the FLEX library libfl.a)
OR: Enter full path to flex library on your system
PROBLEM: libfl.a NOT FOUND IN
You should check if libfl.a located in /usr/lib64.

weiwangncar · 2023-12-07T06:01:23Z

@ahheo Thanks for pointing it out. True, /usr/lib64 does not have libfl.a, it has /usr/libfl.so. Let me find out more about this lib.

weiwangncar · 2023-12-07T07:24:15Z

@ahheo Replacing libfl.a by libfl.so allowed the code to compile.

weiwangncar · 2023-12-11T07:36:25Z

@ahheo You probably received an email as well. If you have not, the regression tests have failed. Mostly because it failed to compile for all.

ahheo · 2023-12-11T11:21:01Z

@ahheo You probably received an email as well. If you have not, the regression tests have failed. Mostly because it failed to compile for all.

@weiwangncar Hope this commit 26964a0 works fine.

weiwangncar · 2023-12-19T03:02:51Z

@ahheo The last change did not pass the regression tests. I have moved this to the develop branch to give both you and us more time to review and test the change.

ahheo · 2023-12-19T08:03:46Z

@ahheo The last change did not pass the regression tests. I have moved this to the develop branch to give both you and us more time to review and test the change.

@weiwangncar Absolutely OK. It would be nice if you can tell more information why the regression tests failed.

weiwangncar · 2023-12-19T08:15:33Z

@ahheo The problem is that no output was sent back. This can indicate serious problems. Have you succeeded in compiling the updated code on your local computer?

ahheo · 2023-12-19T08:54:52Z

@ahheo The problem is that no output was sent back. This can indicate serious problems. Have you succeeded in compiling the updated code on your local computer?

@weiwangncar Yes, I successfully compiled the updated code on my own machine. So, something goes weird?

chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/gen.c

chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/scan.l

chem/KPP/kpp/kpp-2.1/src/scan.y

chem/KPP/util/wkc/kpp_data.c

compile

tools/gen_irr_diag.c

tools/gen_wrf_io.c

weiwangncar · 2024-02-13T20:43:38Z

@ahheo Would you like to update the PR based on the suggestions made?

benkirk · 2024-02-13T22:08:57Z

Hi, I lead the user support group for Derecho, and I just wanted to say we will really value this contribution. WRF-Chem has been quite painful, so far.

Can I also ask a naïve question, in hopes of getting pointed in a useful direction?
I see from the KPP github site it is actively developed, with releases as recent as 2 months ago. Yet as this PR correctly observes the version in WRF-Chem is 20+ years old. I'm sure there is a good reason for that(?). Can anyone explain why??

Thanks again, this is great work.

ahheo · 2024-02-16T09:25:46Z

@ahheo Would you like to update the PR based on the suggestions made?

@weiwangncar Sorry that for the late reply because I just come back from holidays to office today. The PR was updated as suggested. Please see and review the commit 911facc.

compile

tools/gen_wrf_io.c

This reverts commit 82447aa. modified: compile modified: tools/gen_wrf_io.c

…an if condition grouping (tools/gen_wrf_io.c)

weiwangncar · 2024-02-20T17:15:20Z

@islas Can you take hopefully a final check on this PR?

weiwangncar

For WRF-Chem since Jordan Schnell has approved this before.

weiwangncar · 2024-02-20T20:57:03Z

@ahheo If you could let us where you work, we can add it to the PR. Thanks for contributing to our model development effort.

ahheo · 2024-02-21T02:38:05Z

If you could let us where you work, we can add it to the PR.

I work in National Space Science Center, CAS. Feel free to add it or not as I made the changes on my own :).

weiwangncar · 2024-02-21T03:44:32Z

@ahheo OK, thanks for letting us know.

DWesl

While I'm glad you're clarifying the precedence of the bit-mask and logical-not operators, I have some questions about the choice of how to do so, and would appreciate hearing the reasons for responding to the warning by insisting you meant the behavior the compiler thought unlikely?

DWesl · 2024-02-24T17:34:25Z

tools/gen_interp.c

@@ -377,7 +377,7 @@ fprintf(fp," ngrid%%parent_grid_ratio, ngrid%%parent_grid_ratio
 strcpy( tmpstr , pp->interpu_aux_fields ) ;
 } else if ( down_path & FORCE_DOWN ) {
 /* by default, add the boundary and boundary tendency fields to the arg list */
- if ( ! p->node_kind & FOURD ) {
+ if ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) {


Suggested change

if ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) {

if ( ! (p->node_kind & FOURD) ) {

or

Suggested change

if ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) {

if ( (~ p->node_kind) & FOURD ) {

registry.h has #define FOURD 8 so this conditional will never be met (!p->node_kind) will be 0 or 1)

DWesl · 2024-02-24T17:36:21Z

tools/gen_wrf_io.c

@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ gen_wrf_io2 ( FILE * fp , char * fname, char * structname , char * fourdname, no
 {


- if ( p->ndims > 3 && ! p->node_kind & FOURD ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */
+ if ( p->ndims > 3 && ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */


Suggested change

if ( p->ndims > 3 && ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */

if ( p->ndims > 3 && ! (p->node_kind & FOURD) ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */

or

Suggested change

if ( p->ndims > 3 && ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */

if ( p->ndims > 3 && (~ p->node_kind) & FOURD ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */

registry.h has #define FOURD 8 so this conditional will never be met (!p->node_kind) will be 0 or 1)

DWesl · 2024-02-24T17:37:56Z

tools/reg_parse.c

@@ -1058,7 +1058,7 @@ check_dimspecs()
 p->assoc_nl_var_s,p->name ) ;
 return(1) ;
 }
- if ( ! q->node_kind & RCONFIG )
+ if ( (! q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )


Suggested change

if ( (! q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )

if ( ! (q->node_kind & RCONFIG) )

or

Suggested change

if ( (! q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )

if ( (~ q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )

I suspect RCONFIG != 1, so this conditional is unlikely to be met as-is.

DWesl · 2024-02-24T17:39:23Z

tools/reg_parse.c

@@ -1083,7 +1083,7 @@ check_dimspecs()
 p->assoc_nl_var_e,p->name ) ;
 return(1) ;
 }
- if ( ! q->node_kind & RCONFIG )
+ if ( (! q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )


Suggested change

if ( (! q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )

if ( ! (q->node_kind & RCONFIG) )

or

Suggested change

if ( (! q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )

if ( (~ q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )

I suspect RCONFIG != 1, so this conditional will never be met as-is.

ahheo · 2024-02-27T02:04:54Z

While I'm glad you're clarifying the precedence of the bit-mask and logical-not operators, I have some questions about the choice of how to do so, and would appreciate hearing the reasons for responding to the warning by insisting you meant the behavior the compiler thought unlikely?

@DWesl Thank you for raising the questions. I would point out that my corresponding changes focused only on the grouping of if-conditions but not the precedence of the bit-mask and logical-not operators. Assuming that the original code yields warnings but gives the right results, the rule applied for grouping is to have the same result after grouping. Indeed, I have made the following test (currently with only icx compiler):

a is 1 and b is 0:
! a & b is False
! (a & b) is True
(! a) & b is False

a is 0 and b is 0:
! a & b is False
! (a & b) is True
(! a) & b is False

a is 0 and b is 1:
! a & b is True
! (a & b) is True
(! a) & b is True

a is 1 and b is 1:
! a & b is False
! (a & b) is False
(! a) & b is False

But I cannot confirm that the assumption is reasonable, and I wouldn't say if the warnings are related to the ifx compiler. Finally, it would be very appreciated if you can validate the assumption and/or made changes with your reasons provided.

DWesl · 2024-02-27T15:57:38Z

FOURD = 8, and RCONFIG = 4:

WRF/tools/registry.h

Lines 27 to 28 in 794843f

 #define RCONFIG 4 

 #define FOURD 8

I think if you use either value for b, the first and third results will always be false, even if you use 8, 12, or even 255 for a, at which point we may as well delete the conditional and make any else branch evaluate every time. Phrased another way, I think the compiler warning is correct that whoever wrote the code was wrong about the relative precedence of ! and &.

ahheo · 2024-02-28T03:43:00Z

I think if you use either value for b, the first and third results will always be false, even if you use 8, 12, or even 255 for a
I think the compiler warning is correct that whoever wrote the code was wrong about the relative precedence of ! and &.

@DWesl I agree with you. Well, I have not idea what I need to do at this point as the pull request has been merged already.

…ags (#2030) Fix issue with generalized compiler version output using the wrong flags TYPE: bug fix KEYWORDS: compile, version SOURCE: internal DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES: Problem: A generalized compile version check was proposed in #1987. This logic was implemented in #1942 but the originating logic contains a bug where the `-V` and `--version` flag commands' output is flipped. Solution: Use `-V` in the appropriate spot when `$status` is zero for the `-V` check, and respectively for the `--version` check. LIST OF MODIFIED FILES: M compile TESTS CONDUCTED: 1. With previous bad logic the compile log output shows a compiler error as the wrong flag is used to output version info. With the fix, the correct output now shows in the compile log.

…ags (wrf-model#2030) Fix issue with generalized compiler version output using the wrong flags TYPE: bug fix KEYWORDS: compile, version SOURCE: internal DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES: Problem: A generalized compile version check was proposed in wrf-model#1987. This logic was implemented in wrf-model#1942 but the originating logic contains a bug where the `-V` and `--version` flag commands' output is flipped. Solution: Use `-V` in the appropriate spot when `$status` is zero for the `-V` check, and respectively for the `--version` check. LIST OF MODIFIED FILES: M compile TESTS CONDUCTED: 1. With previous bad logic the compile log output shows a compiler error as the wrong flag is used to output version info. With the fix, the correct output now shows in the compile log.

Resolves building issues (WRF/WRF-chem) with Intel compilers (ifx/icx)

6a42bb0

ahheo requested review from a team as code owners November 28, 2023 08:24

ahheo mentioned this pull request Nov 28, 2023

Resolves building issues with Intel compilers (ifx/icx) #1823

Merged

weiwangncar reviewed Nov 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

restore icc stanza & add icx stanza

7361882

remove an empty line in code.c to trigger a reg test.

44e42de

weiwangncar added the release-v4.5.2 label Dec 6, 2023

Merge branch 'release-v4.5.2' into CL_test

bf6f746

remove duplicated type declaration in gen_comms.c

26964a0

weiwangncar added Develop Branch and removed release-v4.5.2 labels Dec 19, 2023

weiwangncar changed the base branch from release-v4.5.2 to develop January 13, 2024 02:57

islas reviewed Feb 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

weiwangncar added the WRF Chem label Feb 14, 2024

changes suggested by islas

911facc

ahheo dismissed jordanschnell’s stale review via 911facc February 16, 2024 09:18

islas requested changes Feb 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

compile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tools/gen_wrf_io.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ahheo added 3 commits February 18, 2024 13:17

changes suggested by islas wrf-model#2

82447aa

Revert "changes suggested by islas wrf-model#2"

30eaaa4

This reverts commit 82447aa. modified: compile modified: tools/gen_wrf_io.c

removing previous logic of compiler detection (compile) and revising …

401c8e4

…an if condition grouping (tools/gen_wrf_io.c)

ahheo requested a review from islas February 19, 2024 08:38

islas approved these changes Feb 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

weiwangncar approved these changes Feb 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

weiwangncar merged commit 2e15abb into wrf-model:develop Feb 20, 2024
1 of 2 checks passed

kkeene44 mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2024

Add if test for ftn compiler version (for derecho) in compile file #1987

Closed

DWesl mentioned this pull request Feb 24, 2024

Quiet compiler warnings for registry.exe #1858

Open

DWesl reviewed Feb 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

weiwangncar added the release-v4.6.0 label Mar 17, 2024

islas mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2024

Fix issue with generalized compiler version output using the wrong flags #2030

Merged

	if ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) {
	if ( ! (p->node_kind & FOURD) ) {

	if ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) {
	if ( (~ p->node_kind) & FOURD ) {

	if ( p->ndims > 3 && ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */
	if ( p->ndims > 3 && ! (p->node_kind & FOURD) ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */

	if ( p->ndims > 3 && ( (! p->node_kind) & FOURD ) ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */
	if ( p->ndims > 3 && (~ p->node_kind) & FOURD ) continue ; /* short circuit anything with more than 3 dims, (not counting 4d arrays) */

	if ( (! q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )
	if ( ! (q->node_kind & RCONFIG) )

	if ( (! q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )
	if ( (~ q->node_kind) & RCONFIG )

Resolves building issues (WRF/WRF-chem) with Intel compilers (ifx/icx) #1942

Resolves building issues (WRF/WRF-chem) with Intel compilers (ifx/icx) #1942

Conversation

ahheo commented Nov 28, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

weiwangncar commented Nov 29, 2023

ahheo commented Nov 30, 2023

weiwangncar commented Nov 30, 2023

weiwangncar commented Dec 5, 2023

weiwangncar commented Dec 5, 2023

weiwangncar commented Dec 6, 2023

ahheo commented Dec 6, 2023

weiwangncar commented Dec 7, 2023

ahheo commented Dec 7, 2023

weiwangncar commented Dec 7, 2023

weiwangncar commented Dec 7, 2023

weiwangncar commented Dec 11, 2023

ahheo commented Dec 11, 2023

weiwangncar commented Dec 19, 2023

ahheo commented Dec 19, 2023

weiwangncar commented Dec 19, 2023

ahheo commented Dec 19, 2023

weiwangncar commented Feb 13, 2024

benkirk commented Feb 13, 2024

ahheo commented Feb 16, 2024

weiwangncar commented Feb 20, 2024

weiwangncar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

weiwangncar commented Feb 20, 2024

ahheo commented Feb 21, 2024 • edited Loading

weiwangncar commented Feb 21, 2024

DWesl left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ahheo commented Feb 27, 2024

DWesl commented Feb 27, 2024

ahheo commented Feb 28, 2024 • edited Loading

ahheo commented Feb 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

DWesl left a comment •

edited

Loading

ahheo commented Feb 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading