compilation times: cvf vs ivf

[forall]

When compiling a moderately large (15,000lines) totally self-contained f-95 module in a separate file the IVF compiler appears to hang - nothing happens at least for 45mins after which I gave up. the pc has plenty of grunt-pentiumM with 1.5G ram. CVF used to compile this is <10sec. has this been observed before?

further to this, the "cancel build" button is greyed out and inactive, which means i have to abort by clicking on the cross and killing the entire application.

finally, to make this more exciting, the "compile" button is staying greyed out permanently now. only direct "build" is active, which of course doesnt help much when one just wants to compile a single file. not good.

Message Edited by forall on 09-17-2004 11:27 AM

[forall]

further to this, the "cancel build" button is greyed out and inactive, which means i have to abort by clicking on the cross and killing the entire application.

Message Edited by forall on 09-17-2004 11:23 AM

[Steven_L_Intel1]

We've seen this with some source files. Not many. Lots and lots of module procedures seems to be one cause. Please report this to Intel and provide an example.

If you use the "Build" button, the cancel build works. If you compile a source file by itself, you will have to use the Task Manager to kill the fortcom.exe process.

[burgel]

I'm running ifort (Linux) on an SGI Itanium box (1.3GHz), and I also have a long subroutine that takes a long time to compile with just -O1. The code is a subroutine with about 14,000 lines, mostly short loops that operate on 1-D "gather" arrays that contain values from 3-D fields where there is actually some work to be done. At -O1, it actually issues a warning:

Warning: Optimization suppressed due to excessive resource requirements; contact Intel Premier Support

I get around this with the -override_limits option, but the compiler (version 8) takes 75 minutes to compile the code and by the end is using about 8GB of memory. Version 9 just became available, and it takes over 4 hours to compile, using the same options! By contrast, XLF compiles the same code in about 5 minutes and gives comparable performance on a 2.5GHz G5 machine.

The Question: My suspicion is that -O1 turns on some global optimizations that are choking it because of the code length. Is there an equivalent set of options combined with -O0 that will do the same thing as -O1 so I can test removing different options? The users guide for v9 says that -O1 sets the following option:

-unroll0 -nofltconsistency -fp

I don't see how these would cause such a long compile time, however. (For reference, -O0 takes about 30 seconds to compile.)

Any advice would be appreciated. This long compile time is really ridiculous. And I don't think it is giving accurate results, either.

-- Ted

Message Edited by burgel on 06-27-2005 11:11 AM