On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Kelly, Bernard J. (GSFC-660.0)[UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY] bernard.j.kelly@nasa.gov wrote:
Hi Erik. Responses below ...
On 5/27/11 4:19 PM, "Erik Schnetter" schnetter@cct.lsu.edu wrote:
Bernard
Here are some possible explanations:
(1) That's impossible.
(2) You sent this on April 1, and the message got delayed.
Sadly it's happening, and I sent the first report in on 27 May 2011.
(3) Some sort of weird compiler problem. Can you re-build from scratch without optimisation? Can you look at the screen when LAPACK/BLAS are compiled to ensure that these are also built without optimisation?
I wasn't explicitly trying to -avoid- optimisation for this, since this was being compiled at the same time as the overall cactus executable.
(checking ...) the overall config for my machine is passing "-O2" in [F77|F90|C|CXX]_OPTIMISE_FLAGS. I've switched this to "-O0", and am recompiling ...
OK; I have a newly built liblapack.a and libblas.a in the scratch directory for this unoptimised run. Same (incorrect) result as before.
(4) A linker problem, and the code actually uses a different (not the Cactus built-in version) of LAPACK/BLAS. Can you rebuild with SILENT=no as make option, and look at the final link line to see which LAPACK and BLAS versions are used?
That's not it. I explicitly linked that simple test program against the Cactus-built LAPACK + BLAS:
ifort lapack_test.F90 -o lapack_test.exe -L../configs/handpugh/scratch/external/LAPACK -llapack -L../configs/handpugh/scratch/external/BLAS -lblas
... and that's where I got the wrong results ...
It may still be that another library called "lapack" is found first. Can you leave out all -L and -l options, and give the library name directly?
ifort lapack_test.F90 -o lapack_test.exe ../configs/handpugh/scratch/external/LAPACK/liblapack.a ../configs/handpugh/scratch/external/BLAS/libblas.a
I'm also trying your example on my notebook, but am still compiling.
-erik