Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Workaround for Cray compiler bug involving NULL() intrinsic #1560

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

J-Lentz
Copy link
Contributor

@J-Lentz J-Lentz commented Jul 26, 2024

Description
The Cray compiler contains a bug where the NULL() intrinsic fails to produce a pointer of the correct type when it is passed directly to a subroutine expecting a pointer to a derived type.

This PR implements a workaround where NULL() is assigned to a variable which is passed to the subroutine, rather than calling NULL() directly as a subroutine argument.

How Has This Been Tested?
Builds with Cray compiler 15.0.1 on C5.

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
  • New check tests, if applicable, are included
  • make distcheck passes

A workaround has been introduced for a bug in the Cray compiler, where the
NULL() intrinsic fails to return a pointer of the correct type. Rather than
using NULL() directly as a subroutine argument, it is assigned to a variable
which is passed to the subroutines.
@rem1776
Copy link
Contributor

rem1776 commented Aug 28, 2024

@J-Lentz Just a heads up, I'm going to push an empty commit to this PR to re-trigger the CI. It looks like it only failed due to #1480.

@J-Lentz
Copy link
Contributor Author

J-Lentz commented Sep 6, 2024

This bug should be fixed in the next CCE release in a few months, so perhaps this PR doesn't need to be merged.

@J-Lentz J-Lentz closed this Sep 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants