- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I now have IVF but part of the task I have involves use of CVF. One of my big challenges is matching numerical outut via CVF (v6.6C) w/ that from IVF (v.12.1.5). Let's focus on CVF.
I have been told that CVF settings to maximize fidelity (minimize chances for numerical differences) include the following:
Within the CVF IDE, I have been able to find all of them except /assume:accuracy_sensitive
Does anyone know where this switch might be in the CVF IDE?
I have been told that CVF settings to maximize fidelity (minimize chances for numerical differences) include the following:
/tune:host
/fltconsistency
/fpe[:0-3] (default is /fpe:3)
/fpconstant
/nooptimize (choices are /optimize[:0-5])
/notransform_loops
/noinline
/assume:accuracy_sensitive
Within the CVF IDE, I have been able to find all of them except /assume:accuracy_sensitive
Does anyone know where this switch might be in the CVF IDE?
Link Copied
3 Replies
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
According to the CVF documentation this is under Optimizations > Allow Reordering of Floating Point Operations. Note that not all compiler options have IDE equivalents - you can always specify options under Command Line.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
You were right Steve. Though the name next to the check box bears no resemblance to the switch name added to the command line.
I just tested this switch and I must disagree with the advice that it aids numerical precision. Au contaire.
In fact, the CVF dropdown note for this switch says:
The numeric results can be slightly different because of the way intermediate results are rounded when this option is not selected.
So, don't use /assume:accuracy_sensitive is you're interested in numerical fidelity. For numerical fidelity, the best overall command line is probably:
I just tested this switch and I must disagree with the advice that it aids numerical precision. Au contaire.
In fact, the CVF dropdown note for this switch says:
The numeric results can be slightly different because of the way intermediate results are rounded when this option is not selected.
So, don't use /assume:accuracy_sensitive is you're interested in numerical fidelity. For numerical fidelity, the best overall command line is probably:
/assume:minus0 /browser:"Debug/" /check:bounds /compile_only /dbglibs /debug:full /fltconsistency /fpconstant /fpe:0 /nologo /traceback /tune:host /warn:argument_checking /warn:nofileopt /warn:unused /module:"Debug/" /object:"Debug/" /pdbfile:"Debug/DF60.PDB"
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I think you misunderstand the description. /assume:accuracy_sensitive disables optimizations that are not value-safe, such as reassociation. Your list of options has a lot that have no effect on "numerical fidelity" and are taken from a debug configuration.

Reply
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page