<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: /Qfp-stack-check in Intel® Fortran Compiler</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890976#M78255</link>
    <description>By the way, the correct spelling of the option in version 10.1 is /Qfp-stack-check. The older spelling /Qfpstkchk has been deprecated. I don't see the error with 9.1 nor with the internal build of our next major release (still a ways away).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;As best as I can tell, this is a compiler bug. It occurs only with optimization level 2 or 3. I have reported this to development. If you report the issue to Intel Support, please reference T85092-CP.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 16:18:02 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Steven_L_Intel1</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2008-05-08T16:18:02Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>/Qfp-stack-check</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890973#M78252</link>
      <description>The following program is fine when compiled (on Windows) with&lt;BR /&gt;ifort err.f90&lt;BR /&gt;but when compiled with the fp stack checking option&lt;BR /&gt;ifort /Qfp-stack-check err.f90&lt;BR /&gt;it gives access violation when executed.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;In my debugging efforts I've been turning on all the stack checking options, but this one seems to create a bug itself. &lt;BR /&gt;Interestingly, commenting out either of the two executable statements in subroutine zzz makes it OK.&lt;BR /&gt;Any comments Steve?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;cheers&lt;BR /&gt;Gib&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;! err.f90&lt;BR /&gt;module errmod&lt;BR /&gt;implicit none&lt;BR /&gt;contains&lt;BR /&gt;subroutine zzz(m)&lt;BR /&gt;integer :: m(3)&lt;BR /&gt;integer :: n(3)&lt;BR /&gt;real :: x(3)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;x = m&lt;BR /&gt;n = x&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;end subroutine&lt;BR /&gt;end module&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;program err&lt;BR /&gt;use errmod&lt;BR /&gt;integer :: site(3) = (/1,2,3/)&lt;BR /&gt;call zzz(site)&lt;BR /&gt;end&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 06:45:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890973#M78252</guid>
      <dc:creator>gib</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-05-08T06:45:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: /Qfp-stack-check</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890974#M78253</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The option is /Qfpstkchk&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I tried your code both from the command line and within VS without a problem&lt;BR /&gt;(VS2005 and IVF 9.1.028)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Les&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 10:25:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890974#M78253</guid>
      <dc:creator>Les_Neilson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-05-08T10:25:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: /Qfp-stack-check</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890975#M78254</link>
      <description>Access violation is exactly what to expect when the FP stack check option finds a problem.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I can reproduce the error - let me investigate.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 15:08:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890975#M78254</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven_L_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-05-08T15:08:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: /Qfp-stack-check</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890976#M78255</link>
      <description>By the way, the correct spelling of the option in version 10.1 is /Qfp-stack-check. The older spelling /Qfpstkchk has been deprecated. I don't see the error with 9.1 nor with the internal build of our next major release (still a ways away).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;As best as I can tell, this is a compiler bug. It occurs only with optimization level 2 or 3. I have reported this to development. If you report the issue to Intel Support, please reference T85092-CP.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 16:18:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890976#M78255</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven_L_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-05-08T16:18:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: /Qfp-stack-check</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890977#M78256</link>
      <description>Thanks Steve.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 22:54:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890977#M78256</guid>
      <dc:creator>gib</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-05-08T22:54:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: /Qfp-stack-check</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890978#M78257</link>
      <description>The problem you encountered was reported earlier and is fixed in our next major release. A workaround is to use /QxN or whatever other appropriate version of /Qx is that would generate SSE code instead of x87 (no FP stack, runs faster.) Reference: T80134-CP.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 17:43:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Fortran-Compiler/Qfp-stack-check/m-p/890978#M78257</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven_L_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-05-09T17:43:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

