[petsc-users] Intel Internal compiler error: segmentation violation signal raised

[TAY wee-beng]

On 9/4/2014 12:31 AM, Dharmendar Reddy wrote:
> Hello wee-beng,
>                              What is the version of intel compiler you
> are using ? I use 13.1.0.146 Build 20130121, i have no issues using
> petsc.h90 in my fortran code.
>
> Reddy

Hi Reddy,

Thanks for the help. I was also using petsc.h90 w/o problem until I 
added some DM functions into my code. I'm using ifort 11 and 12. Maybe 
it's fixed in 13 but my cluster doesn't have it.

Anyway, I can circumvent the error by using petsc.h instead.

Regards.
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:15 AM, TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Barry,
>>
>> Thanks for the advice. It took me a while to compile and build successfully
>> with gfortran due to the stricter rules and entirely different options.
>>
>> But the most problematic thing was that most clusters I work with use old
>> versions of gcc/gfortran. With the gcc/gfortran tied to the MPI, it seems
>> that I can't just update myself to use the new version, or can I?
>>
>> Also, can anyone recommend options to get optimized results in gfortran?
>>
>> I'm using :
>>
>> -fno-signed-zeros  -fno-trapping-math -ffast-math -march=native
>> -funroll-loops -ffree-line-length-none -O3
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> TAY wee-beng
>>
>>
>> On 8/4/2014 8:04 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>>>      You should never get yourself in a position where you "have to" use a
>>> particular compiler. Strive to have portable makefiles that don't depend on
>>> the compiler (with PETSc makefiles this is easy) and to have portable code
>>> that doesn't depend on the compiler. Then switching between compilers takes
>>> literally a couple minutes. It is extremely counter productive to do nothing
>>> for days because the compiler you are using doesn't work under a particular
>>> circumstance. It really isn't hard to set things up so changing compilers is
>>> easy.
>>>
>>>      Barry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 8, 2014, at 6:39 AM, Jed Brown <jed at jedbrown.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> TAY wee-beng <zonexo at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> My impression was intel is mostly faster. However, does it apply to
>>>>> gfortran too? Is it also faster for a lot of code than Intel fortran?
>>>>> I'll give it a go if it's so. However, I remember changing a no. of
>>>>> options to build and in the end, it was slower. that's a few yrs ago
>>>>> though.
>>>> It varies, but usually not by a large factor and a broken compiler takes
>>>> infinitely long to produce correct answers.  Report the bug to Intel,
>>>> use gfortran (latest version), and get on with your business.  If/when
>>>> Intel fixes the bug, if you still have a license, try ifort again.
>>