Re: [AMBER-Developers] (long-ish) saga about the HAS_10_12 option in sander and pmemd

From: David A Case <>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:46:05 -0400

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011, Duke, Robert E Jr wrote:

> Well, do bear in mind the conditions under which the code was written:
> 1) mandate to absolutely maximize performance, and 2) good branch
> prediction was not uniformly available across all cpu's in use.

Understood -- I'm not trying to complain here -- everyone agrees that the
pmemd code is nicely done, and easier to read and modify (in spite of the
#ifdef's) than sander. And, I'm the kettle calling the pot black, since a
good fraction of the mess in sander is my fault.

But we should still clean up things as much as makes sense.


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Wed Oct 26 2011 - 13:00:03 PDT
Custom Search