RE: amber-developers: Re: Busted mt19937.f with gfortran in parallel.

From: Ross Walker <ross.rosswalker.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:43:56 -0800

Ah ha:

cvs log $AMBERHOME/src/configure_amber

revision 9.93
date: 2008/10/20 03:52:32; author: sbrozell; state: Exp; lines: +2 -2
Removed -fno-range-check from gfortran compile flags.
This completely removes it. Some old gfortrans do not
support this option; see below.
It is still unclear to me (see revision 9.65 log) why this option
is necessary or even useful. The log for revision 9.64 where the
option was introduced is almost useless since it does not indicate
why the option was added; in addition the doc subdirectory contains
no instance of Jory; so this tiny clue didnt help.
Testing the Fortran compiler:
     gfortran -O0 -fno-range-check -fno-second-underscore -o testp testp.f
f951: error: unrecognized command line option "-fno-range-check"
gcc version 4.0.0 20041009 (experimental)
Darwin rooster.compbio.ucsf.edu 7.9.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar
30 20:11:17 PST 2005; root:xnu/xnu-517.12.7.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power
Macintosh powerpc

So adding '-fno-range-check' back in fixes the compilation (for some
versions of gfortran) - but still seems like a bit hack to me...

All the best
Ross

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-amber-developers.scripps.edu [mailto:owner-amber-
> developers.scripps.edu] On Behalf Of Volodymyr Babin
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:31 PM
> To: amber-developers.scripps.edu
> Subject: amber-developers: Re: Busted mt19937.f with gfortran in parallel.
>
> Hi All,
>
> the mt19937.f is indeed broken (well, it depends how you define things).
> Quick googling provides semi-fix : -fno-range-check flag to gfortran.
> I am going to take a closer look tonight.
>
> With kind regards,
> Volodymyr
>
> On Mon, November 3, 2008 18:43, Ross Walker wrote:
> > Okay, looking further into this it seems that the mt19937 module is only
> > used by some of the NCSU code and the routine causing the problem here
> is
> > the function
> >
> > random_int32
> >
> > Which as far as I can tell is NOT legal fortran due to it trying to
> stuff
> > int*8 values into int*4 variables. However, since this is only used by
> > Volodymyr code I thought I'd let him look at this first before I hack
> the
> > code about to see if he can see a simple solution.
> >
> > All the best
> > Ross
> >
> >
Received on Fri Dec 05 2008 - 10:35:02 PST
Custom Search