[MITgcm-devel] exf_interp_read

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Hi Martin,

This is documented in the tag-index:
> - Add new option: EXF_INTERP_USE_DYNALLOC to use Dynamical Allocation when
>   reading the file ; Important: This options needs to be defined to recover
>   previous code.
And the reason for choosing to do this way, is that the most
"safer" case is with #undef EXF_INTERP_USE_DYNALLOC, which is
with no dynamical allocation.

Jean-Michel

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 09:51:23PM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> something has happened to exf_interp_read
> 
> After updating the code I get this:
> 
> mpiexec /opt/pce/bin/xd1launcher ../build/mitgcmuv
> EXF_INTERP_READ: exf_interp_bufferSize too small
> EXF_INTERP_READ: exf_interp_bufferSize too small
> EXF_INTERP_READ: exf_interp_bufferSize too small
> EXF_INTERP_READ: exf_interp_bufferSize too small
> STOP
> 
> in EXF_PARAMS.h I see
> C  To read input data without dynamical allocation  
> (EXF_INTERP_USE_DYNALLOC undef),
> C  buffer size currently set to 20000 (allows to read-in a 2x2 global  
> data set)
>       INTEGER    exf_interp_bufferSize
>       PARAMETER( exf_interp_bufferSize = 10000 )
> 
> wouldn't it make sense to set the default really to 20000 (as  
> promised in the comment) which is larger than 192x94=18048 (the  
> "standard" size of ncep/core fields that we use for the cs510 for  
> example)?
> 
> Plus with the fields that I downloaded from Dimitiris, I have a  
> runoff file which is 360x180 = 64800.
> I am not happy about having a local copy of EXF_PARAMS.h in every  
> single experiment that uses EXF_USE_INTERPOLATION. How do you feel  
> about this? Couldn't we have a better default (more like 64800)?
> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel