On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, David A. Case wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005, Michael Crowley wrote:
> >
> > fortcom: Error: _ew_recip.f, line 1716: The type of the actual
argument
> > differs from the type of the dummy argument.
>
> This is reminiscent of a similar problem with the rstack()
implementation
> earlier. Generally, I think we should try to make sure that types
explicitly
> agree. It's not clear to me that implementations of complex variables
are
> required to use two adjacent real variables -- so the compiler is
actually
> being correct in refusing this.
>
> Having strict type checking is sometimes a pain, but my guess is that
the
> advantages in catching errors outweigh the hassle in getting things to
work
> the way the compiler wants....
>
> (But, maybe someone else knows a workaround.....)
>
> ...dac
>
Thanks Dave, I agree now with your suggestion about things agreeing.
The problem was certainly very local to what we are doing by filling the
charge grid with real numbers consecutively and then doing a complex fft
on that grid. I wanted the filling of the charge grid to look like what
it is and the same for the potential in the grad sum, not be a strange
extracting of real numbers from a complex array. Too bad.
Mike
Received on Wed Apr 05 2006 - 23:49:46 PDT
