9.1 & woodcrest support

[binky]

Does Intel (Fortran) Compiler 9.1 support woodcrest?

It does accept -xT but does it really help?

TIA

[Steven_L_Intel1]

Yes, Woodcrest is supported. Whether -xT helps is application dependent, but it does do something useful for Woodcrest, Merom and Conroe.

[binky]

Steve, many thanks!

sure, the usefulness of -xT will be case specific.

do you know if -xT is forced by default if I use -O3? I am asking because there is no a single word (obviously)in man pages or any other documentation I know of.

And BTW do you know when 10.0 is out as beta or otherwise?

[Steven_L_Intel1]

No, -xT is not forced on by any other option. You must ask for it explicitly. Consider it similar in usage and effect to -xP except that it requires an Intel Core 2 processor (Conrow/Merom) or Woodcrest (whatever they decide to call it officially.) It is true that, for now, the only place it is mentioned is the release notes.

If you were an active beta tester of 9.1, we'll likely let you know when the beta for the next version begins. I can't make comments on when that would be.

[TimP]

As before, ifort defaults to code which will run on all supported platforms, so -xT is never a default. That option is most likely to be beneficial in specialized instances where the new instructions are useful. I have to agree the documentation on that is weak.
There is a lot of work to do before 10.0 could come out in beta. I personally am satisfied that 9.1 is an excellent compiler, and will continue to see a few small improvements.

[binky]

I was sure thatif -O3 is used then -xP is assumed unless overridden by -xW or similar. So by analogy I was thinking that if I am using -O3 on a woodcrest then the compiler might as well default to -xT when -O3 is requested.

I've missed somehow 9.1 beta although I was involved in 9.0 beta. Hopefully we will learn about 10.0 beta in time.

yes, 9.1 is a great compiler.

[Steven_L_Intel1]

No, -O3 does not imply -xP. -fast does.