Thanks Satish, we’ve submitted a bug report with Intel and are following up with them.
Randy > On Apr 12, 2018, at 12:08 AM, Satish Balay <ba...@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > I see this error with "-xAVX" build aswell. > > Satish > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Zhang, Hong wrote: > >> Performance wise, I would suggest to use "-xAVX" instead of "-axcore-avx2". >> Based on our experience with running PETSc on a variety of Xeon processors >> (including KNL), using AVX2 yields comparable and sometimes worse >> performance than using AVX. But if your machine supports AVX-512, it is >> definitely beneficial to use AVX-512. >> >> Hong (Mr.) >> >>> On Apr 5, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Randall Mackie <rlmackie...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Dear PETSc users, >>> >>> I’m curious if anyone else experiences problems using DMDAVecGetArrayF90 in >>> conjunction with Intel compilers? >>> We have had many problems (typically 11 SEGV segmentation violations) when >>> PETSc is compiled in optimize mode (with various combinations of options). >>> These same codes run valgrind clean with gfortran, so I assume this is an >>> Intel bug, but before we submit a bug report I wanted to see if anyone else >>> had similar experiences? >>> We have basically gone back and replaced our calls to DMDAVecGetArrayF90 >>> with calls to VecGetArrayF90 and pass those pointers into a “local” >>> subroutine that works fine. >>> >>> In case anyone is curious, the attached test code shows this behavior when >>> PETSc is compiled with the following options: >>> >>> ./configure \ >>> --with-clean=1 \ >>> --with-debugging=0 \ >>> --with-fortran=1 \ >>> --with-64-bit-indices \ >>> --download-mpich=../mpich-3.3a2.tar.gz \ >>> --with-blas-lapack-dir=/opt/intel/mkl \ >>> --with-cc=icc \ >>> --with-fc=ifort \ >>> --with-cxx=icc \ >>> --FOPTFLAGS='-O2 -xSSSE3 -axcore-avx2' \ >>> --COPTFLAGS='-O2 -xSSSE3 -axcore-avx2' \ >>> --CXXOPTFLAGS='-O2 -xSSSE3 -axcore-avx2’ \ >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Randy M. >>> >>> <cmd_test><makefile><test.F90> >> >>