Which ifc features not yet implemented in ifort and when will they be?

Which ifc features not yet implemented in ifort and when will they be?

Hi,
Apparently that -zero flag is not yet implement and neither is -CU or any of the -C flags. What else is not yet implmented in ifort and when will they be implemented? Can we please get a complete list?

Thanks in advance,
David

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice.

-zero should be available in the next update. The various -C options are planned for a future release. The only other unimplemented command line option I know of is -C90, and that's not going to return.

Steve - Intel Developer Support

Thank you.

I suppose that with the complete runtime check options, we get proper debug info at crash time as well?

Currently (20040412Z Package ID: l_fc_pc_8.0.046), I get something similar to:


ifort -o xyconvlbg xyconvlb.go bits.go bitsc.o convertlbxy.go -u
-nbs -tpp7 -axW -fno-alias -ansi_alias -ip -align -warn all -O0 -C
-L/home/office/tconnors/software/Linux-i386/lib -lpgplot
-L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11 -lpng -lcfitsio
forrtl: severe (64): input conversion error, unit 20, file
/nfs/cluster/cosmic2/tconnors/magellanic/hvcsim/output/lb.dat
Image PC Routine Line Source
xyconvlbg 080B646B Unknown Unknown Unknown
xyconvlbg 08089593 Unknown Unknown Unknown
xyconvlbg 08089A3A Unknown Unknown Unknown
xyconvlbg 0809DA0F Unknown Unknown Unknown
xyconvlbg 0809CA86 Unknown Unknown Unknown
xyconvlbg 0804F275 Unknown Unknown Unknown
xyconvlbg 0804D413 Unknown Unknown Unknown
xyconvlbg 0804A2C8 Unknown Unknown Unknown
xyconvlbg 402688AE Unknown Unknown Unknown
xyconvlbg 0804A181 Unknown Unknown Unknown
forrtl: error (76): IOT trap signal

(You can see the compiler flags I used - which include -g and -C)

Ideally, it would behave like ifc 7.0 - it would tell me the line number of the input file it crashed at (in this case, it was the ~20000th line of the file, where I started getting -INFs in my input, and read (20,*) doesn't know what to do about them), it would tell me the line number of the code it crashed at, etc. Indeed, the output should not be dependant upon the -C runtime checks -- they should just depend on the -g debugging output.

Perhaps I have done something wrong? Some of those flags came from the ifc 7.0 installation, and don't seem to be documented in the ifort manpages, but they don't crash anything, and when removed, the output is still the same.

I have seen some of these sorts of errors give additional info on the file. This particular case would not be a -C type check, by the way.

Have you tried it with -g?

Steve - Intel Developer Support

You need the -traceback option to put line number information in the stack trace. This is quite separate from the -g option.

Aha. -traceback is good. Thanks.

Leave a Comment

Please sign in to add a comment. Not a member? Join today