On Thu, Sep 17, 2009, Scott Brozell wrote:
>
> But I've heard that not all such libraries support CBLAS, e.g.,
> ACML. I havent tested this.
I'm a little lost here. I thought that ACML includes its own BLAS, so one
would not be mixing ACML with CBLAS anyway(?) Does anyone have experience with
this? Should we be supporting it?
> icc -c -Dflex -O2 -DBINTRAJ -o nmode.o nmode.c
> ../f2c/f2c.h(21): error: _Complex can only be used with float, double, or long double types typedef struct { real r, i; } complex;
>
> But the fix for this looks like the f2c.h include was superfluous.
> One would hope that a C interface would not have such a basic flaw.
I should have made more clear the fact that this whole conversation has come
up because of portability problems with f2c.h. It happened to be the case
that nmode.c could be hand-edited to remove the f2c.h dependency, but that
will not be the case for other codes.
> > > 4. If we stick with C, then some things like nab could still work even for
> > > machines that don't have a Fortran compiler.
>
> This might be nice for DOCK since the dock6 exe does not now need fortran.
> You say nab but probably mean sff.
Well, nab is a superset of sff. And, although the dock6 exe itself may not
need fortran, the suite does require a fortran compiler
to compile mopac, sphgen, etc. The transition of mopac -> sqm will only
increase the Fortran needs (going from f77 to f90 requirements).
Thanks for the input.....dac
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Thu Sep 17 2009 - 05:30:02 PDT
