[MITgcm-devel] autodiff_store/restore

[Martin Losch]

Thanks Patrick,

the missing initialisation was indeed the problem.

M.

On May 9, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Patrick Heimbach wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> 
> this was written to combine I/O from multiple variable into single array
> which seems to improve performance on some platforms.
> 
> It's not followed throughout, so you can keep new stores separate
> (unless you anticipate them to be part of a "core" set of stores,
> in which case it'd be better to add them in autodiff_store/restore).
> 
> Your warning is unrelated,
> most likely due to missing initialization of those fields.
> 
> -p.
> 
> On May 9, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Martin Losch wrote:
> 
>> Hi Matt, and others,
>> 
>> can you remind me why we need autodiff_store/restore?
>> 
>> I want to include a new control variable (like surface forcing) and I am wondering if I need to include it into this autodiff_store/restore scheme. 
>> I am getting warnings that my xx_newctrl0 and 1 are overwritten by the top-level routine. Can this be related?
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-devel mailing list
>> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> 
> ---
> Patrick Heimbach | heimbach at mit.edu | http://www.mit.edu/~heimbach
> MIT | EAPS 54-1518 | 77 Massachusetts Ave | Cambridge MA 02139 USA
> FON +1-617-253-5259 | FAX +1-617-253-4464 | SKYPE patrick.heimbach
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel