Dear Okazaki-san
no idea why buccaneer fails. The best I can do is try to reproduce
the problem and take a look at the core dump to determine why. We
have just received a small update from Kevin, so it would be good to
see if this fixes the problem.
Can you send your config.status (global) and your compiler version
(off list obviously)
Thanks
Charles Ballard
CCP4
On 23 Jan 2009, at 08:06, Nobuo OKAZAKI wrote:
Dear Bill,
Yes, the first problem I faced was precision. In double precision,
all of CLIPPER programs did not run. After that, I have used with
single
precision MKL's FFT. And CLIPPER programs except cbuccaneer.exam
successfully ran.
So, I wonder why only the BUCCANEER fails under this environment. :(
Certainly, using pre-built package is easear and faster than
building by
myself. But I want to compare performance between pre-built and Intel
MKL. :)
In my trial, test(make runtest) under Intel Compiler with Intel MKL(as
LAPACK without FFT) is 8% faster than pre-build package. I wornder how
much contributes with MKL's FFT library.
Nobuo OKAZAKI
Bill wrote:
I should let the experts answer definitively, but I think this might
be because the clipper-related stuff (and coot) need single-precision
s[r]fftw libraries.
I had to do something like this:
LDFLAGS="-Wl,-dylib_file,/sw/lib/libsfftw.2.0.7.dylib:/sw/lib/
libsrfftw.2.0.7.dylib"
It will probably be a bit different on Fedora (linux uses .so instead
of .dylib suffixes). The main point is to force-feed it the single-
precision libraries.
In practice it is probably just easier just to let ccp4 build its
own,
unless you need the mpi versions. Single precision makes the
calculation go faster and you can't see the difference in the
maps, in
my experience.
HTH,
