Re: [gmx-users] single X double precision

Manual Appendix A.2; note that the last one among the reasons listed for needing double will soon not be the case anymore (see verlet scheme in 4.6 http://www.gromacs.org/Documentation/Cut-off_schemes). -- Szilárd 2012/4/17 Pedro Alexandre de Araújo Gomes Lapido Loureiro : > Thank you, Szilárd.

Re: [gmx-users] single X double precision

Thank you, Szilárd. Do you know where (say, in a piece of code or some documentation) I can be sure about that? Cheers, Pedro. Em 17 de abril de 2012 15:43, Szilárd Páll escreveu: > 2012/4/17 Pedro Alexandre de Araújo Gomes Lapido Loureiro < > palap...@gmail.com>: > > Hi, > > > > I've come acro

Re: [gmx-users] single X double precision

2012/4/17 Pedro Alexandre de Araújo Gomes Lapido Loureiro : > Hi, > > I've come across a discussion about the "single X double precision" issue in > a NAMD users list e-mail > (http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/namd/mailing_list/namd-l/9166.html). > I would like to know what do you think about these

[gmx-users] single X double precision

Hi, I've come across a discussion about the "single X double precision" issue in a NAMD users list e-mail ( http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/namd/mailing_list/namd-l/9166.html). I would like to know what do you think about these 3 specific points: 1) "there are some places where single precision (