Re: [SOLVED] Re: What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries?

Re: [SOLVED] Re: What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries?

[Edvardsen Kåre]

>         >    I helped Edvardsen to track this down off-list.  It turns
>         out that FLEXPART
>         > is one of those huge number-crunching Fortran programs
>         that's just jam-packed
>         > with ginormous multi-dimensional arrays.  The final linked
>         executable had 3.38
>         > GB of .bss space!  So, it's not too surprising that it
>         didn't load on 32-bit
>         > Windows; and it's not, as I was worrying, any explicit bug
>         in the compiler or
>         > binutils (although it may be arguable that ld could be
>         helpful if it issued
>         > some kind of warning in these circumstances).
>         Out of curiosity, how then was the OP ever able to make *any*
>         version run?
>         
>         Ryan

I'm not sure of the exact pre-required settings I had when I compiled
FLEXPART to have a successful executable, but there seem to be various
default parameter settings in some of the FLEXPART include files that
will lead to some ginormous multi dimensional arrays. 
I was pretty sure I did the exact same procedure when I compiled
FLEXPART later and got the non working executable, but if the .bss space
was too large, I must have done something else before. It's just that I
can't possibly think of anything I did different.
However, I'm determined to locate the problem, to advice the FLEXPART
developers. I don't want others to go through something similar.

Kåre

Re: [SOLVED] Re: What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries?

[Edvardsen Kåre]

> >> FLEXPART is one of those huge number-crunching Fortran programs that's
> >> just jam-packed with ginormous multi-dimensional arrays. The final linked
> >> executable had 3.38 GB of .bss space!
> 
> > Out of curiosity, how then was the OP ever able to make *any* version run?
> 
>   Not clear yet but probably owing to changes in one or more of the array
> dimensions in the upstream source that he didn't notice taking place.
> 
>     cheers,
>       DaveK

I managed to track down one critical array specification which I sat
smaller before compiling. The 64-bit version use the same initialisation
file as the 32-bit, so an array size of 22E+06 elements instead of 6E+06
was used. The SizeOfUninitializedData is now 5eeba800 (1.6 GB) and
everything works beautiful :)

I would never had thought of this without your help! Thank you very
much!

Cheers,
Kåre

Re: [SOLVED] Re: What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries?

[Dave Korn]

On 15/11/2011 16:20, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> On 15/11/2011 10:53 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 09/11/2011 12:15, Edvardsen KÃ¥re wrote:
>>> In short, the main problem is that I can't build a successful binary
>>> from the FLEXPART fortran code

>> FLEXPART is one of those huge number-crunching Fortran programs that's
>> just jam-packed with ginormous multi-dimensional arrays. The final linked
>> executable had 3.38 GB of .bss space!

> Out of curiosity, how then was the OP ever able to make *any* version run?

  Not clear yet but probably owing to changes in one or more of the array
dimensions in the upstream source that he didn't notice taking place.

    cheers,
      DaveK


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: [SOLVED] Re: What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries?

[Ryan Johnson]

On 15/11/2011 10:53 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 09/11/2011 12:15, Edvardsen KÃ¥re wrote:
>> This is again related to the failure of execution of a gfortran built
>> binary ("cannot execute binary", see thread
>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2011-11/msg00034.html )
>>
>> In short, the main problem is that I can't build a successful binary
>> from the FLEXPART fortran code
>
>    I helped Edvardsen to track this down off-list.  It turns out that FLEXPART
> is one of those huge number-crunching Fortran programs that's just jam-packed
> with ginormous multi-dimensional arrays.  The final linked executable had 3.38
> GB of .bss space!  So, it's not too surprising that it didn't load on 32-bit
> Windows; and it's not, as I was worrying, any explicit bug in the compiler or
> binutils (although it may be arguable that ld could be helpful if it issued
> some kind of warning in these circumstances).
Out of curiosity, how then was the OP ever able to make *any* version run?

Ryan


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

[SOLVED] Re: What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries?

[Dave Korn]

On 09/11/2011 12:15, Edvardsen KÃ¥re wrote:
> This is again related to the failure of execution of a gfortran built
> binary ("cannot execute binary", see thread
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2011-11/msg00034.html )
> 
> In short, the main problem is that I can't build a successful binary
> from the FLEXPART fortran code 


  I helped Edvardsen to track this down off-list.  It turns out that FLEXPART
is one of those huge number-crunching Fortran programs that's just jam-packed
with ginormous multi-dimensional arrays.  The final linked executable had 3.38
GB of .bss space!  So, it's not too surprising that it didn't load on 32-bit
Windows; and it's not, as I was worrying, any explicit bug in the compiler or
binutils (although it may be arguable that ld could be helpful if it issued
some kind of warning in these circumstances).

    cheers,
      DaveK

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple