which g95 binary to use? 
Author Message
 which g95 binary to use?

Hello group,

Up until now, i have only installed g95 on personal x86 desktop
PC's or laptops, but now I've been asked to install it on what
our sysadmin calls 'an amd64 system'.  The system shows
8 processors under /proc/cpuinfo which all look like this:

processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 23

stepping        : 6
cpu MHz         : 2992.506
cache size      : 6144 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 4
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 4
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 10
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm syscall nx lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_c
pl vmx est tm2 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm
bogomips        : 5990.20
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 38 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

The Linux system installed is Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 (etch).

What binary of g95 should i download and install on this system?  Can
I simply install the Linux x86-64 (Debian) debian package?

Thanks for the advice,
Bart

--
        "Share what you know.  Learn what you don't."



Sun, 04 Sep 2011 20:46:54 GMT  
 which g95 binary to use?

Quote:

> The Linux system installed is Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 (etch).

> What binary of g95 should i download and install on this system?  Can
> I simply install the Linux x86-64 (Debian) debian package?

I've just tested it, and the Linux x86 Debian package
(g95-x86-linux.deb) does not work, but the Linux x86-64 (Debian)
package can be installed using dpkg -i.  However, I get the error

gauss:~# g95 --version
g95: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by
g95)

which is probably due to the fact that I'm doing this on an
(quite olddated) Debian 4.0 (etch) system and the newer glibc is
not available on this system.  I'm not sure if Debian 4.0 (etch)
has a package that can be installed to resolve this problem?

Maybe it's better to simply untar/zip the 'Linux x86'
(g95-x86-linux.tgz) file and do it that way, instead of
desperately trying to get the Debian package to work?
(the binary in that .tgz file works, i already tested it)

Thanks for sharing your advice.

Bart

--
        "Share what you know.  Learn what you don't."



Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:15:02 GMT  
 which g95 binary to use?

Quote:

> [...]
> Maybe it's better to simply untar/zip the 'Linux x86'
> (g95-x86-linux.tgz) file and do it that way, instead of
> desperately trying to get the Debian package to work?
> (the binary in that .tgz file works, i already tested it)

Hmm... seems like there are some trouble with this binary for me
too... I get things like:

make[1]: Entering directory `/home/bartv/mylocaldir/src/modules'
g95 -c -g -pedantic -Wall -fbounds-check -ftrace=full -std=F numeric_kinds.f95
g95 -c -g -pedantic -Wall -fbounds-check -ftrace=full -std=F mod_constants.f95
g95 -c -g -pedantic -Wall -fbounds-check -ftrace=full -std=F mod_preisach.f95
/tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s:20: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
/tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s:110: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
/tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s:187: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
make[1]: *** [mod_preisach.o] Error 1

I'm confused... don't know what g95 binary exactly I should use :-(

Kind regards,
Bart

--
        "Share what you know.  Learn what you don't."



Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:30:13 GMT  
 which g95 binary to use?
On Mar 18, 9:30?am, Bart Vandewoestyne

Quote:


> > [...]
> > Maybe it's better to simply untar/zip the 'Linux x86'
> > (g95-x86-linux.tgz) file and do it that way, instead of
> > desperately trying to get the Debian package to work?
> > (the binary in that .tgz file works, i already tested it)

> Hmm... seems like there are some trouble with this binary for me
> too... I get things like:

> make[1]: Entering directory `/home/bartv/mylocaldir/src/modules'
> g95 -c -g -pedantic -Wall -fbounds-check -ftrace=full -std=F numeric_kinds.f95
> g95 -c -g -pedantic -Wall -fbounds-check -ftrace=full -std=F mod_constants.f95
> g95 -c -g -pedantic -Wall -fbounds-check -ftrace=full -std=F mod_preisach.f95
> /tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s:20: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> /tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s:110: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> /tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s:187: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'
> make[1]: *** [mod_preisach.o] Error 1

> I'm confused... don't know what g95 binary exactly I should use :-(

> Kind regards,
> Bart

> --
> ? ? ? ? "Share what you know. ?Learn what you don't."

There is a separte g95 list to which I suggest you direct your
question.


Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:56:06 GMT  
 which g95 binary to use?

Quote:
> /tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/cc4O2Bgx.s:20: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push'

This happens when the compiler generates x86 assembly code and the
assembler wants x86_64 assembly code.  Compile a really simple
test program such as:

subroutine sub(x,y)
   y = x
end subroutine sub

to assembly with:

g95 -S sub.f90

and you should see stuff that looks like:

push %ebp
mov %esp, %ebp

You can't push and pop the 32-bit integer registers in 64-bit
mode.  The as program was expecting something like:

push %rbp
mov %rsp, %rbp

Consider this an act of mercy by the AMD ISA designers: you find
out right off the bat and unambiguously that you are trying to
pass 32-bit assembly code to a 64-bit assembler.  You really want
a version of g95 that says x86_64 in it someplace because your
system probably has way more physical memory than you can access
readily in 32-bit mode.

--
write(*,*) transfer((/17.392111325966148d0,6.5794487871554595D-85, &
6.0134700243160014d-154/),(/'x'/)); end



Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:11:45 GMT  
 which g95 binary to use?

Quote:

> [...] You really want
> a version of g95 that says x86_64 in it someplace because your
> system probably has way more physical memory than you can access
> readily in 32-bit mode.

I've tried the following binaries:

1) Linux x86_64/EMT64 (32 bit D.I.)        (2009-03-15 00:42)
http://ftp.g95.org/g95-x86_64-32-linux.tgz

2) Linux x86_64/EMT64 (64 bit D.I.)        (2009-03-15 00:41)
http://ftp.g95.org/g95-x86_64-64-linux.tgz

They both give me the error:

gauss:~# g95 --version
Floating point exception

I'm kinda lost here...

Kind regards,
Bart

--
        "Share what you know.  Learn what you don't."



Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:31:02 GMT  
 which g95 binary to use?

Quote:
> gauss:~# g95 --version
> Floating point exception

Yuck.  The compiler is giving you an f.p. exception when you ask it
to divulge its version?  How about:

g95 -v

?  I don't know Linux at all, so I can't help you further.  It's
probably something trivial -- Andy's stuff tends to work better
than that.  Hope you have better luck at

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/gg95

.

--
write(*,*) transfer((/17.392111325966148d0,6.5794487871554595D-85, &
6.0134700243160014d-154/),(/'x'/)); end



Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:33:35 GMT  
 which g95 binary to use?

Quote:

> Yuck.  The compiler is giving you an f.p. exception when you ask it
> to divulge its version?  How about:

> g95 -v

Same error :-(

Regards,
Bart

--
        "Share what you know.  Learn what you don't."



Mon, 05 Sep 2011 06:15:17 GMT  
 which g95 binary to use?
On Mar 18, 2:15?pm, Bart Vandewoestyne

Quote:

> > The Linux system installed is Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 (etch).

> > What binary of g95 should i download and install on this system? ?Can
> > I simply install the Linux x86-64 (Debian) debian package?

> I've just tested it, and the Linux x86 Debian package
> (g95-x86-linux.deb) does not work, but the Linux x86-64 (Debian)
> package can be installed using dpkg -i.

x86-64 is correct. AMD64 was the same as x86-64 before Intel started
implementing x86-64 in their chips too.

Quote:
> ?However, I get the error

> gauss:~# g95 --version
> g95: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by
> g95)

> which is probably due to the fact that I'm doing this on an
> (quite olddated) Debian 4.0 (etch) system and the newer glibc is
> not available on this system.  I'm not sure if Debian 4.0 (etch)
> has a package that can be installed to resolve this problem?

Etch has glibc 2.3.6.  I doubt there is an upgrade path to glibc 2.4
other than installing Lenny or newer.  Upgrading glibc is not
something one usually does on a stable machine.

Quote:
> Maybe it's better to simply untar/zip the 'Linux x86'
> (g95-x86-linux.tgz) file and do it that way, instead of
> desperately trying to get the Debian package to work?

You can probably best try to build from source. See http://g95.org/source.shtml

(shameless plug: gfortran 4.3 is easier to build from source ;-)

Hope this helps,

Ciao!
Steven



Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:27:03 GMT  
 
 [ 9 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. new gcc-g95 binaries released

2. Windows binary for g95 -- no Cygwin required

3. g95 on Windows: g95.exe: no input files

4. Using g95 with MATLAB (MAC OS X)

5. Compiling LAPACK with ATLAS on cygwin using g95

6. Has anyone used f90sql-lite with g95?

7. Binary structure of ASF files used with APL*Plus, version 10

8. Using STRING for binary primary keys??

9. Using Fields Containing Binary Data with ODBC

10. Uses of SDE and Slim Binaries

11. URGENT: Converting Decimal to binary using scheme

12. Binary Search using assembly

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software