public inbox for cygwin@cygwin.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: [SOLVED] Re: What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries?
@ 2011-11-16 11:30 Edvardsen Kåre
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Edvardsen Kåre @ 2011-11-16 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin


> >> 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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [SOLVED] Re: What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries?
@ 2011-11-16  9:06 Edvardsen Kåre
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Edvardsen Kåre @ 2011-11-16  9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin


>         >    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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries?
@ 2011-11-09 12:15 Edvardsen Kåre
  2011-11-15 15:54 ` [SOLVED] " Dave Korn
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Edvardsen Kåre @ 2011-11-09 12:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin

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 (just google "FLEXPART nilu" if you are
curious of what FLEXPART is) on a cygwin installation I did just over a
week ago, but it builds and run without problem on an installation from
October 3. I get no differences in warnings from the bad build compared
to the good one, so I really don't know what to look for.

So far I have come to the conclusion that this must be related to one or
several changes in the cygwin distribution done after October 3. Through
try and failure testing I found that this is not affected by
gfortran/gcc as both gcc 4.3.4 and gcc 4.5.3 works. The latter hangs on
'$EGREP' calls in the 'grib_api' (required library) configure script,
but the workaround of changing to 'egrep' works fine.

I have posted the output from strace, objdump and cygcheck for some of
you to look at in the former thread, but it seem like this is far from a
straight forward problem.

I can see from the [ANNOUNCEMENT] posts that a few things in this cygwin
distro have been updated since October 3 and I kindly ask if someone
have an idea of what updates since then may cause a badly gfortran built
binary if it has nothing to do with gcc alone? 

I will now start going through the updates and change back to versions
yielding October 3 if possible. I think this is important since cygwin
will give the opportunity to run and develop FLEXPART on Windows
machines the way linux-users are used to. In addition, I also see a
potential problem of other fortran software that people want to run
under cygwin.

Regards,
Kåre

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-11-16 11:30 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-11-16 11:30 [SOLVED] Re: What updates done after October 3 may affect gfortran built binaries? Edvardsen Kåre
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-11-16  9:06 Edvardsen Kåre
2011-11-09 12:15 Edvardsen Kåre
2011-11-15 15:54 ` [SOLVED] " Dave Korn
2011-11-15 16:21   ` Ryan Johnson
2011-11-15 22:55     ` Dave Korn

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).