Hi,
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Mark Williamson <mjw.sdsc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> C) Keep the my current "fix" and allow versions of gfortran prior to 4.2.0 .
>>
>> Option "A" I think is unlikely, plus, not all distributions may pick up this
>> fix. Option "C" seems silly since the compiler version is holding back the
>> benefits Joe states above and this problem is not seen in ifort.
> I just wanted to mention that, perhaps, the 'silly' option ("C") may
> actually be the best one, from the point of view of portability. I can
> imagine users trying to install Amber in some older systems, and
> getting into trouble because they don't have the latest version of
> gfortran (For example, RHEL 4 doens't, as you mention yourself).
> Unless, of course, we decide to drop support to all legacy systems at
> once...
This has been resolved, but one point of my previous recent emails to
the list is that the benefits excluded by silly options like C have to
weighed against the potential reduced portability of other options.
> If we go with option "B", may I suggest a similar check on the
> configure_at script as well, to decide whether or not to install gleap
> if the gcc version is < 3.4? (I still get bitten by it sometimes :-( )
configure_at has a check for the compiler version for gleap;
it has been set at 3.1 because until march 26, 2009, 3.1 worked for us.
Now 3.3 no longer builds sleap.
Wei and Dave may want to update their bugzilla login names, which
are their old scripps emails. And Wei should read the reopened bug 87:
http://bugzilla.ambermd.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87
Scott
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Wed Apr 01 2009 - 01:10:43 PDT
