Re: [AMBER-Developers] Compilation of AMBER Tools

From: Scott Brozell <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:21:46 -0400


On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:51:38PM -0700, Ross Walker wrote:
> Yes except I think by trying to support more compiler versions we ultimately
> make simpler code. Do we really need all the new features or can we get away
> with a subset?
> Wow... I sound like you and I swapped places in our ideals... LOL!!!

Batman: "An older head can't be put on younger shoulders."

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:21:05AM -0400, David A. Case wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011, Jason Swails wrote:
> >
> > I can see the PGI compilers complaining here, except maybe the newest
> > versions... I also don't think we should drop PGI support, since they're
> > fairly prominent and high-performance commercial compilers...
> OK; I am convinced that we should continue to support gcc 4.1.2 and similar,
> although as far as I know, no one knows how to fix the ncsu problem.
> I believe that Taisung has (or will) convert allocatable arrays to pointers,
> which should be tested. But we do need people who still have RedHat servers
> to continue to test with the older compilers.

Batman to Robin: "Stop fiddling with that atomic pile and come down here!"


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Wed Jun 15 2011 - 11:30:02 PDT
Custom Search