Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Recent content by isyegatech

  1. isyegatech

    Conformity issue arises when using interfaces with function pointers

    @Norbert(29 Apr 13 14:43): Thanks for the reply. I am learning Fortran 2003 now and trying to adapt Broyden's algorithm provided by Numerical Recipes in Fortran 90 to one in the format of Fortran 2003 so that I can feed the algorithm/subroutine arbitrary size of equation systems and solve for...
  2. isyegatech

    Conformity issue arises when using interfaces with function pointers

    Sorry that there are some typos in the code shown above (post #1). Here is an improved version of my code: [link goo.gl/f4fMd]Link[/url]. It is a single .f90 format file that reproduces my error message. Thanks.
  3. isyegatech

    Conformity issue arises when using interfaces with function pointers

    I am starting this thread to ask for help solve a problem that might come from my wrong specification of a function interface, but I don't know how to fix it. The error message I encountered is short and simply says, "Illegal number or type of arguments to lnsrch - arguments of fmin and func do...
  4. isyegatech

    Question about the use of GEMM vs MATMUL

    @mikrom: please take a look at the following link．You would see the difference in the use of GEMM (via Math Kernel Library wrapped up by Intel) and xGEMM. Put briefly, the shortest form could be "GEMM(a,b,c)" as opposed to "call dgemm(transa, transb, m, n, k, alpha, a, lda, b, ldb, beta, c, ldc).
  5. isyegatech

    Question about the use of GEMM vs MATMUL

    @mikrom: Sorry that I didn't make it clear in my last post. I mean, if people use BLAS95.mod, then they can use the simplified statement, GEMM, instead of the original, a tad lengthy statements like DGEMM and SGEMM for which more input arguments are required. I totally agree with the information...
  6. isyegatech

    Question about the use of GEMM vs MATMUL

    Hi everyone, thank you for all the replies. I've figured out what's wrong with my statement now. @mikrom: the simplified GEMM statement is legal as long as the compiler knows where the pre-compiled subroutine package is located (that is, BLAS95). Otherwise, as you suggested, for real-type...
  7. isyegatech

    Question about the use of GEMM vs MATMUL

    After several experiments on the inputs of GEMM, I find the compiler accepts either the statement GEMM(a(:,:),bb(:,:),c(:,:)) or GEMM(a,bb,c) as long as the congruity of dimension of input variables holds. So, the compiling error comes my mistaking a(:) with a(:,:), which hence violates the...
  8. isyegatech

    Question about the use of GEMM vs MATMUL

    Hi everyone, I am trying to finding the root of a nonlinear system using the fortran 90 subroutine "newt" provided in the book, Numerical Recipes. I try to substitute the statement [highlight #D3D7CF]GEMM[/highlight], provided in Math Kernel Library, for the fortran built-in statement...
See more

Part and Inventory Search

Back
Top