Difference between revisions of "Glam:compilers"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
During development in early summer 2008 a number of compiler specific issues were discovered with glam. After some development work glam should now compile and run with the following ccompilers: | During development in early summer 2008 a number of compiler specific issues were discovered with glam. After some development work glam should now compile and run with the following ccompilers: | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
* pgf90 (Portland Group) | * pgf90 (Portland Group) | ||
| − | Note that g95 gives much slower performance than the others. Sun gives probably the fastest run times. | + | Note that g95 gives much slower performance than the others. Sun gives probably the fastest run times. gfortran gives informative error messages, is compatible with ddd, and is quite strict on bounds checking, and so may be the tool of choice for initial development/debugging. |
Latest revision as of 13:51, 3 July 2008
During development in early summer 2008 a number of compiler specific issues were discovered with glam. After some development work glam should now compile and run with the following ccompilers:
- ifort (intel)
- gfortran (gnu)
- g95
- f95 (Sun)
- pgf90 (Portland Group)
Note that g95 gives much slower performance than the others. Sun gives probably the fastest run times. gfortran gives informative error messages, is compatible with ddd, and is quite strict on bounds checking, and so may be the tool of choice for initial development/debugging.