<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:47 AM, David van der Spoel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spoel@xray.bmc.uu.se">spoel@xray.bmc.uu.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<a href="mailto:chris.neale@utoronto.ca" target="_blank">chris.neale@utoronto.ca</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Roll back to gcc 3.x.<br>
<br>
There is information available that says something like "don't use gcc 4.x, it is broken", but I stand by my previous comments that it is unfortunate that it is up to the end user to search the gromacs archives to find this out, not withstanding that it is a gcc-based problem.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, you're fortunate to have found this out and there are probably *lots* of people running gcc 4.x installations of gromacs right now.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
We discussed including the test set with the distribution, which would simplify the procedure, but decided against it, because the distribution would become a lot bigger.<br>
<br>
Maybe we should reconsider this?</blockquote><div><br>I think we also need some larger tests with few hundred thousands up to a few million atoms. Because I had several issues in the last weeks that mdrun binaries with different compilers were all working fine with smaller systems but gave total different results (became unstable) with some compiler (I had problems with: gcc 4.2.0 with barcelona patches, pgi, IBM xlc, it worked with gcc 4.2.4 and pathscale). Without common tests for these larger systems it is hard to report these problems.<br>
<br>Roland<br></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Center for Molecular Biophysics ORNL/UT <a href="http://cmb.ornl.gov">cmb.ornl.gov</a><br>
</div>