Just trying to keep this on the users list.
--Steve
| Subject: | Re: [Users] ET and recent Intel compilers |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:00:26 +0900 |
| From: | Hee Il Kim <heeilkim@gmail.com> |
| To: | Steven R. Brandt <sbrandt@cct.lsu.edu> |
_______________________________________________Sorry I lost track of this email thread. I got caught up with other things. I'm wondering whether you have tried compiling with fp-precise? I'm just wondering whether it could be a problem with Intel's optimization.
--Steve
On 9/1/2021 6:21 AM, Hee Il Kim wrote:
Hi,
As James Healy mentioned in the post "[Users] Einstein Toolkit and modern AMD supercomputer", I found static_tov.par passed the test for the Intel issue. So some bns-generic codes would make NaNs. But less probable because the only bns-generic code would be NSTracker but I've already encountered the NaN production issue w/wo NSTracker.
NaNChecker itself could be suspected but both bns and tove tests are using NaNChecker.
Rather, it could be a generic issue of Intel compiler. There are some bugs reported and new features in handling NaNs for the case of ifx. Those look just irrelevant yet.
Hee IlĀ
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@einsteintoolkit.org http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Users mailing list
Users@einsteintoolkit.org
http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users