viewing 3d arrays with the intel array visualiser

[a_j_payne]

hi

is there a way of using the visualizer (as called by "view array" from the debugger) to look at 3d arrays? when i do this, i get a 2d representation of the first level of the 3d array (ie array(1,:,:)) and can find no way of scrolling through the rest of the array or of changing which 2 dimensions are visualized. any ideas? this used to work well with the compaq version, which allowed easy scrolling and selection of dimensions.

thanks

tony

[tropfen]

Quoting - a.j.payne@bristol.ac.uk

hi

is there a way of using the visualizer (as called by "view array" from the debugger) to look at 3d arrays? when i do this, i get a 2d representation of the first level of the 3d array (ie array(1,:,:)) and can find no way of scrolling through the rest of the array or of changing which 2 dimensions are visualized. any ideas? this used to work well with the compaq version, which allowed easy scrolling and selection of dimensions.

thanks

tony

hello,

basicly it should be esay.

Having found and started the visualizer you have to click with the right mouse onto the name of your array (on the left side of the window).

Select Viewer.

Then the main program starts. There you have a couple of options to select.

Have a look at the following thread inside the Intel array visualiser forum.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/showthread.php?t=50696

In my personal fealing the intel array viewer is a major downgrade from cvf. I only use it for minor problems. If there is a real problem i still transfer my program back to cvf and use the old array viewer.

Additionally the array viewer was never able to work without many error messages on my system. (since IVF 9.0)

Frank

[a_j_payne]

hi frank

thanks for pointing me to the IAV thread. this solves my problem. i have to agree with your comments about the clunkiness of this implementation in comparison to CVF: ideally the ability to scoll through a dimension should exist in the visualizer (rather than the viewer)and should be a bit more intuitive (ienot require the creation of a new section and then the replotting of that section).

all the best

tony