Re: what's the ifc corresponding argument for -bp in absoft f90
From: Alberto Ramos (alberto_at_martin.ft.uam.es)
Date: 10/21/03
- Previous message: Richard Maine: "Re: g77 & binary vs. unformatted"
- In reply to: Richard Maine: "Re: what's the ifc corresponding argument for -bp in absoft f90"
- Next in thread: Michael Metcalf: "Re: what's the ifc corresponding argument for -bp in absoft f90"
- Reply: Michael Metcalf: "Re: what's the ifc corresponding argument for -bp in absoft f90"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:15:59 +0000 (UTC)
Clearly what you have to do is to fix the code. It can't be difficult, open
the .f90 file with any "decent" editor and change *all* the dsin( to sin(, etc
with this your code will be "standard" and you won't have any problem. This is
clearly the best solution.
Hope it works.
Alberto.
In article <uefzhn69a1.fsf@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov>, Richard Maine wrote:
> "Shi Jin" <jinzishuai@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> program ifctest
>> real*8::x
>> real::y
>>
>> x=1.0d0
>> y=1.0
>> print *,dsin(x),dsin(y)
> ...
>> The problem is dsin(y) where y is a single precision floating point while
>> the expected argument of dsin is a double precision.
>> Basically this is the code's problem.
>
> Yes. Guess I have to ask why you don't just fix the code?
> There is almost never any good reason to use specific intrinsics
> like dsin in the first place. You really ought to remove all
> references to them from the code.
>
>> But we have a way to overcome this problem under absoft f90 compiler --
>> using the -dp option.
>
> Is this the *ONLY* reason you are using the -dp option? To make
> illegal calls to specific intrinsics compile? The -dp option
> has *FAR* more implications than that. If this was the only reason
> you were using -dp, I'd have to expect that it would break
> more things than it would fix. I'm guessing that the code needs
> the -dp option for more reasons than this and that this is just the
> first symptom that you noticed.
>
> I generally advise people to fix codes that need things like -dp,
> but I recognize that sometimes that can be too much work to be
> practical. I'll give you that advice also, with the same caveat.
> If your only problem is the specific intrinsics, then I have
> difficulty in believing that it is impractical to fix them.
> (Sometimes things that I have difficulty in believing turn out
> to be true anyway). If the problem goes deeper, then your job
> might be harder.
>
>> But for the intel ifc compiler for linux, we are having trouble finding out
>> what's the corresponding switch .
>
> I don't off-hand know. I'm pretty sure that the compiler docs come
> with documentation of all the switches, though if I recall correctly,
> there are so many of them that it might well be hard to find the one
> you need. I wouldn't guarantee that it necessarily has such a switch.
> Not all compilers do. That's part of why I recommend fixing codes that
> need such a switch.
>
- Previous message: Richard Maine: "Re: g77 & binary vs. unformatted"
- In reply to: Richard Maine: "Re: what's the ifc corresponding argument for -bp in absoft f90"
- Next in thread: Michael Metcalf: "Re: what's the ifc corresponding argument for -bp in absoft f90"
- Reply: Michael Metcalf: "Re: what's the ifc corresponding argument for -bp in absoft f90"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
