Re: [AMBER-Developers] Goals for AMBER code format/style?; single-precision

From: Scott Brozell <>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:31:57 +0000


On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Joe Krahn wrote:
> David A. Case wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009, Joe Krahn wrote:
>>> The reason for having _REAL_ is to allow single-precision builds.
>> But we don't *really* allow this, it just kind of looks like it. Since
>> we really only support double precisions, "1.0d0" is fine. Trying to
>> fix it would (a) be a *lot* of work; (b) would be error-prone; (c) might
>> expose some compiler bugs we are not seeing now.
>> So, my vote is to let this sleeping dog lie....
> If so, then why not replace _REAL_ with DOUBLE PRECISION and at least get rid
> of the dprec.h hack?

See my next post for my answer to your question.

As far as single precision builds, this dog is probably not just
sleeping, but is in fact dead.
I had a single precision sander built, tested, committed around:
date: 2003/02/19 20:42:32; author: sbrozell; state: Exp; lines: +110 -2

And several months later it had been broken:
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:57:13 -0700
From: Scott Brozell <>
Subject: amber-developers: sander events
Serial single precision sander has been broken. It may get fixed.


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Sun Mar 29 2009 - 01:09:55 PDT
Custom Search