Yeah, I think we have to add an option for this in toolchains/compiler/inteliccifort.py
Kenneth, any thoughts on that? On 11/19/19 3:12 PM, Loris Bennett wrote: > Hi Bart, > > Thanks for the information. I'll try 'precise'. However, the developer > of the program I need to compile (Siesta) explicitly says that '-no-ftz' > should be used, so it certainly would be handy to be able to set that > option. > > Cheers, > > Loris > > Bart Oldeman <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hello Loris, >> >> unfortunately it's not so straightforward to easily override a few flags to >> my knowledge (maybe somebody else knows?) >> >> but you can try >> toolchainopts = {'usempi': True, 'precise': True} >> which sets -fp-model precise, which may be what you want anyway if you care >> about denormals. >> >> you can also use 'strict': True instead if you want even more FP safety. >> >> Cheers, >> Bart >> >> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 08:03, Loris Bennett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I want to use the Intel compiler option '-no-ftz' and have set >> >> toolchainopts = {'usempi': True, 'optarch': 'm64 -xHost -prec-div >> -prec-sqrt -qopt-prefetch -no-ftz'} >> >> However, in the log I see >> >> CFLAGS set to -O2 -m64 -xHost -prec-div -prec-sqrt -qopt-prefetch -no-ftz >> -ftz -fp-speculation=safe -fp-model source >> >> Is this correct? Will the earlier option really win? My expectation >> would be that the later option would take precedence? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Loris >> >> -- >> Dr. Loris Bennett (Mr.) >> ZEDAT, Freie Universität Berlin Email [email protected] -- Ake Sandgren, HPC2N, Umea University, S-90187 Umea, Sweden Internet: [email protected] Phone: +46 90 7866134 Fax: +46 90-580 14 Mobile: +46 70 7716134 WWW: http://www.hpc2n.umu.se
