[MITgcm-support] TAMC bug?

[Chris Hill]

Hi Patrick,

I thought that was what the set64Const.sh script was for
i.e
http://dev.mitgcm.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/MITgcm/tools/set64bitConst.sh?
only_with_tag=MAIN

Doesn't getting rid of _d give us annoying bit reproducibility problems
across platforms?


Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mitgcm-support-bounces at mitgcm.org 
> [mailto:mitgcm-support-bounces at mitgcm.org] On Behalf Of 
> Patrick Heimbach
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 8:13 PM
> To: mitgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> Subject: Re: [MITgcm-support] TAMC bug?
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> this is an old TAMC (but not TAF) problem which Ralf chose 
> not to fix. Indeed, TAMC does not unerdstand blanks in 
> PARAMETER statements of the sort you describe (it does 
> understand blanks in other assignments). I had thought I had 
> removed all the _d assignments in PARAMETER statements, but 
> it seems I've overlooked a few. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll 
> commit them soon.
> 
> Cheers
> -p.
> 
> Daniel Lea wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've been having fun trying to adjoint a recent ECCO version of the 
> > mitgcm. (ecco_c50_e29). I managed to solve the problem I was having 
> > but I thought you might be interested in my travails. I got several 
> > TAMC errors, the first time, for example:
> > 
> >  parsing subroutine ** exf_readparms **
> > 674192      &              exf_half =  0.5 D 0 ,
> >                                            ^
> > *ERROR* : expected )
> > 674193      &              exf_one  =  1.0 D 0 ,
> >                            ^
> > *ERROR* : expected (
> > 674194      &              exf_two  =  2.0 D 0
> >                            ^
> > *ERROR* : expected (
> > 
> > In the file exf_constants.h these parameter definitions are as 
> > follows:
> > 
> >       parameter(
> >      &              exf_half =  0.5 _d 0 ,
> >      &              exf_one  =  1.0 _d 0 ,
> >      &              exf_two  =  2.0 _d 0
> >      &         )
> > 
> > CPP replaces the _d with D. This compiles OK so the problem 
> must lie 
> > with TAMC not understanding the spaces in the parameter definition.
> > 
> > I modified the above to:
> > 
> >       parameter(
> >      &              exf_half =  0.5D0 ,
> >      &              exf_one  =  1.0D0 ,
> >      &              exf_two  =  2.0D0
> >      &         )
> > 
> > I also modified all other parameter definitions in the same 
> way which 
> > eliminated the problem. Strangely this issue about spacing 
> seems to be 
> > a only a problem to TAMC within parameter statements so it 
> could have 
> > been worse!
> > 
> > It looks like there might be a policy of migrating to using the _d 
> > form throughout the code. I would vote against this unless TAMC can 
> > understand the resulting code.
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-support mailing list
> > MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org 
> > http://dev.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
> 
> 
> -- 
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> Patrick Heimbach ............................. MIT
> FON: +1/617/253-5259 .......... EAPS, Room 54-1518
> FAX: +1/617/253-4464 ..... 77 Massachusetts Avenue 
mailto:heimbach at mit.edu ....... Cambridge MA 02139
http://www.mit.edu/~heimbach/ ................ USA

_______________________________________________
MITgcm-support mailing list
MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
http://dev.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support