The ABINIT Users Mailing List ( CLOSED )

["Anglade Pierre-Matthieu" <anglade@gmail.com>]

HI,

Those tests are (mostly v3, v4) PAW and GW tests. They undergoes
problem with gfortran before the final merges. Yet I was thinking most
of the problems with gfortran were fixed during 5.3.2-> 5.3.3. and
then fixed better again in the 5.3.3 -> 5.3.4 by Marc and Matteo. I
haven't already checked what's up with 5.3.4.+gfortran.
I'll tell you tomorrow.

regards

PMA

On 4/4/07, Nuno A. G. Bandeira <nuno.bandeira@ist.utl.pt> wrote:
> gay@sfu.ca wrote:
> > I found recent versions of gfortran gave big errors on
> > tests v2, 61-66, which did not happen with earlier (Oct 06)
> > versions of gfortran. Do you find this?
> >
> Yes I do ! v2-21,58,61-66 have a failure report. Also v3-30,31,57 and 97
> fail and so too do v4-8,57,84-88 and v5-63.
> Does anyone on the development team see a pattern or are these tests
> totally unrelated ?
>
> I had noticed this with previous editions of abinit but since they
> weren't so many compared to the full range of tests I didn't  pay too
> much attention.
>
> It has also been my experience that g95 makes pretty good binaries but
> they are painfully slow and the people at AMD have yet to make a g95
> compiled ACML for Windows. The one I use is a special hack of a g77
> binary libacml to become usable with gfortran. ACML makes it run much
> faster. The benchmark tests are run from an x86-64 platform and my
> humble pentium 4 can beat the timings for most of them.
>
> pgf90 is comparable in performance to gfortran+acml.
>
> --
> Nuno A. G. Bandeira, AMRSC
> Graduate researcher and molecular sculptor
> Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry Group,
> Faculty of Science
> University of Lisbon - C8 building, Campo Grande,
> 1749-016 Lisbon,Portugal
> http://cqb.fc.ul.pt/intheochem/nuno.html
> Doctoral student @ IST,Lisbon
> --


--
Pierre-Matthieu Anglade