roland at utk.edu
Tue Sep 16 20:03:55 CEST 2008
later 4.2 gcc versions (4.2.3 and 4.2.4) seem to be OK too. 4.2.0 is broken.
Intel seems to be OK.
PGI 7.1 is broken, PGI 7.2 seems OK.
Pathscale seems to be OK.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Nicholas Breen <nbreen at ofb.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 09:05:48PM -0400, Justin A. Lemkul wrote:
> > According to the source code download site:
> > "WARNING: do not use the gcc 4.1.x set of compilers. They are broken.
> > compilers come with recent Linux distrubutions like Fedora 5/6 etc."
> > I can attest that gcc 4.0.1 seems to have generated no problems for me.
> > Anything later than that is suspect, as evidenced by strange behavior
> > documented on the users list.
> For what it's worth, I've found gcc 4.3 to be substantially more
> reliable - it seems to have eliminated the various misoptimization
> problems that plagued certain binaries compiled with 4.1.
> Nicholas Breen
> nbreen at ofb.net
> gmx-developers mailing list
> gmx-developers at gromacs.org
> Please don't post (un)subscribe requests to the list. Use the
> www interface or send it to gmx-developers-request at gromacs.org.
ORNL/UT Center for Molecular Biophysics cmb.ornl.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gromacs.org_gmx-developers