Re: [AMBER-Developers] GPU Test Cases

From: Ross Walker <>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:34:36 -0700

Okay - then I am fully open to other suggestions for fixing this.

The rounding issues are there - they aren't going away so we need a test system that can handle this.

Your help is welcome.

> On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Jason Swails <> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Ross Walker <> wrote:
>> The code now does this. One can set IG < -1 in the GPU code and it will
>> use the CPU RNG which shoudl address the issue fo tests failures with tests
>> that use the random number generator. It's on the very very long todo list
>> soemwhere before the next release but if someone want to volunteer to
>> update the test cases great.
> ​I'd have done this long ago if I wasn't afraid of masking a *real* error
> by simply clobbering test files on a system where 1/3 of the tests didn't
> pass. I recall a bug last year shortly before the Amber 14 release went
> live that nobody caught during ~2 weeks of testing since all the tests
> already failed, anyway.
> As for the other diffs - that needs a rework of dacdif most likely - or we
>> build both SPFP and DPFP precision models and use the DPFP model for
>> running the tests.
> ​I don't understand the need for dacdif changes here? DPFP and SPFP follow
> different code paths, we shouldn't test just one of them (there have been
> bugs in the past targeting only one precision model, if memory serves). We
> should test the one we build... isn't that what we already do?
> --
> Jason M. Swails
> BioMaPS,
> Rutgers University
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list

AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Mon Mar 16 2015 - 10:00:02 PDT
Custom Search