LAPACK Archives

[Lapack] [lapack] 32-bit GCC errors

Hi Mark,
I believe the difference should come more from the processor and the pgi 
compiler itself  than the Linux distribution.
I would still validate your LAPACK build on 64 bits.
Those testings are really torture tests and it shouldn't affect the result on 
your program.
Regards,
Julie
On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Mark Dixon wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, julie langou wrote:

Hi Mark,
I finally found a machine with the PGI compiler.
I tried both 32 and 64-bit version and everything was fine. I did not use 
any special flags for compilation. Output is below
I am using pgf90 11.3-0 64-bit target on x86-64 Linux -tp gh
Julie

Hi Julie,

Firstly, my sincere thanks in persevering this far with my report.

However, I'm at a loss to explain what is going on. Your result is similar 
to what I saw under 32-bit mode, but not 64-bit. Attempting to reproduce 
your 64-bit compile as much as possible resulted 843 numerical errors.

* "pgf90 -V" gives:
  pgf90 11.3-0 64-bit target on x86-64 Linux -tp nehalem

* Relevant bit of BLAS include file:

  FORTRAN  = pgf90
  OPTS     =
  DRVOPTS  =
  NOOPT    =
  LOADER   = pgf90
  LOADOPTS =

* Relevant bit of LAPACK 3.3.0 include file:

  FORTRAN  = pgf90
  OPTS     =
  DRVOPTS  =
  NOOPT    =
  LOADER   = pgf90
  LOADOPTS =

* Output of your testing check script appended below - 843 failures.


Could it be related to Linux distribution? I'm running RHEL 5.6 (but with 
a 5.5 kernel).

Mark
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Dixon                       Email    : m.c.dixon@Domain.Removed
HPC/Grid Systems Support         Tel (int): 35429
Information Systems Services     Tel (ext): +44(0)113 343 5429
University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 ******************************************************
 RESULTS
     - numerical failure:
 CST drivers:      4 out of  11664 tests failed to pass the threshold
 CPB drivers:      2 out of   4750 tests failed to pass the threshold
 CLS drivers:      1 out of  65268 tests failed to pass the threshold
 DXV drivers:    200 out of   5000 tests failed to pass the threshold
 DBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 DBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 DBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 DBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 DBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SXV drivers:     37 out of   5000 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SBD drivers:     56 out of   8360 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SLS drivers:      3 out of  65268 tests failed to pass the threshold
 ZXV drivers:     24 out of   5000 tests failed to pass the threshold
 CPB:     11 out of   3458 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SPB:      1 out of   3458 tests failed to pass the threshold
 value of largest test error             =    0.189E+01
 value of largest test error             =    0.160D+01
 value of largest test error             =    0.197E+01
 value of largest test error             =    0.189D+01
 value of largest test error                  =   0.148D+01
     - illegal error:     0
     - info error:        0
     - severe error       0

_______________________________________________
Lapack mailing list
Lapack@Domain.Removed
http://lists.eecs.utk.edu/mailman/listinfo/lapack


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>


For additional information you may use the LAPACK/ScaLAPACK Forum.
Or one of the mailing lists, or