forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index forums.silverfrost.com
Welcome to the Silverfrost forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FTN95 64-bit beta test
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
silverfrost
Site Admin


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 145
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:48 am    Post subject: FTN95 64-bit beta test Reply with quote

The work on the 64-bit version of FTN95 has moved forward significantly. We are now in a position to offer a beta test version to users who are subscribers to our update program. If you are a member of the upgrade program and would like to try your code on our new compiler send us an email at ftn95@silverfrost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1618
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is great. I do not have current upgrade contract which is fixable but, worse, right now have zero free time (better say it's negative) and afraid touching anything potentially time consuming, but i would like to hear the users' comments. If the state of code is really beta not alpha, i would probably jump in.

Key question for me is if debugger can handle 64bit or not like initially was planned. It will be close to impossible for me to scale down the 64bit elephant to 32bit ant to find the errors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1618
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does this beta diagnose in 64bit mode the error type and the line where it occured at least in the text regime if 64bit SDBG is not ready?

Also, designwise, will 64bit compiler support virtually unlimited amount of 2-4GB static arrays or all static arrays will be limited to 4 GB total size?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 4997
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 64 bit development has been added to the existing compiler FTN95.exe so all of the parsing and error reporting will remain essentially unchanged.

A new "backend" has been to added to FTN95.exe for "x64" to go alongside the existing backends for "Win32" and ".NET". These backends generate the relevant assembly instructions for each platform.

Here is an extraction from the beta release notes...

Arrays that are ALLOCATEd, or which are in COMMON or in MODULEs can exceed the 4GB limit, except that initialised arrays must fit within the .EXE or .DLL file to which they belong, and the the size of these files cannot extend beyond the 4GB limit. This is a Microsoft limit, but is fairly reasonable, since the time needed to load a 4GB file would be excessive!

COMMON blocks and MODULE arrays are allocated dynamically as a program starts in order to enjoy no 4GB restrictions. This is applied to all such storage blocks, because a program may exceed the 4GB limit even though each individual array lies within this limit.

Local arrays (static or dynamic) are restricted as in 32 bits. This is because it is not feasible to extend the hardware stack to sizes > 4GB, and SAVE'd variables must fit within the EXE or DLL file to which they belong. Users who require a very large local array, should put it in a COMMON block or MODULE referenced by only the one routine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1618
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) Let me be more exact. If i make an error of division by zero for example on array element lying in the 10GB array - does this beta report the offending line and error type? Does /check or /debug or /undef work right now? Does SDGB work?

2) As of 4GB EXE limit hopefully this will be lifted in future since fastest SSDs and RAM drives can load 4GB file in less then 1 second and advanced SSDs are even faster with 20GB/sec speed. But the next question makes this irrelevant because EXE size can be made very small (mine are 10-100 MB), just put all arrays into common blocks or make them allocatable

3) I still did not get it with the no 4GB limit in common blocks. All my arrays are large, total size is close to 3-4 GB and all are in the COMMON blocks or modules. Some are allocatable but the question is not about allocatables but the ones which are good old ones with the standard static dimensions like in FTN77. Can i declare now with 64 bits their dimensions much larger to get each such static array in common block to be 4GB each or larger? Or they have to be total < 4GB in size ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 4997
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan

The initial release does not include /check etc. when compiling 64 bit executables/DLLs. This will come later. For the moment it is assumed that all testing will be done using 32 bit mode.

I think that your other questions have been answered in the given release notes. If not then I will have to come back to this when I am more awake.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1618
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul,

1) What is written there is confusing and possibly wrong. Can static arrays in COMMON also have unlimited size like allocatables ? In other words,
suppose i currently have an Array1 with one million numbers, or 8 MB total

real*8 Array1
common /commbl1/ Array1(100,100,100)

Now if i take another Array2 which is 1000 times larger, or to 8GB

real*8 Array2
common /commbl2/ Array2(1000,1000,1000)

will your 64bit compiler swallow Array2 with no problem ?

2) I will wait when you at least add /check /debug or /undef to report the offending line number and error type like older compilers have done before. Then this beta will be actually almost usable for me for real job. I need it ASAP. I suppose it does not require development of new SDBG ?

3) How do you plan to sell the 64bit version? As a separate product or as an upgrade or else? As soon as you add any error checking i am ready to pre-order it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnCampbell



Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1803
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been doing some beta testing of FTN95 Ver 8.0.
The option described of having common larger than 2gb does work, providing there is no BLOCK DATA associated with the common.

This is a significant advance over other 64 bit Fortran compilers that I have tested, which only allow ALLOCATE to provide arrays larger than 2gb.
This makes expanding existing 32 bit programs very easy, provided arrays do not exceed 2^31 elements, ie Integer*4 subscripts are suitable.

To show that this works, I wrote this quick example:
Code:
 integer*4, parameter :: n1 = 100
 integer*4, parameter :: n2 = 660
 integer*4, parameter :: n3 = 850
!
 real*8 Array1, Array2, Array3
 common /commbl1/ Array1(n1,n1,n1)
 common /commbl2/ Array2(n2,n2,n2)
 common /commbl3/ Array3(n3,n3,n3)
!
! Now if i increase it 1000 times to 8GB
!
  integer*4 n,i,j,k,ne, ng
  real*4    gb, sec
  external  sec
!
     n = n1
     gb = real(size(array1))*8. / (1024.**3)
     write (*,*) ' '
     write (*,*) 'Initialising Array 1 gb =',gb, sec(), ' sec'
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            array1(k,j,i) = i+j+k
          end do
        end do
      end do
!
     write (*,*) 'Checking Array 1', sec(), ' sec'
      ne = 0
      ng = 0
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            ng = ng+1
            if ( array1(k,j,i) /= i+j+k ) ne = ne+1
          end do
        end do
      end do
     write (*,*) ng,' elements : ',ne,' errors detected', sec(), ' sec'
!
     n = n2
     gb = real(size(array2))*8. / (1024.**3)
     write (*,*) ' '
     write (*,*) 'Initialising Array 2 gb =',gb, sec(), ' sec'
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            array2(k,j,i) = i+j+k
          end do
        end do
      end do
!
     write (*,*) 'Checking Array 2', sec(), ' sec'
      ne = 0
      ng = 0
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            ng = ng+1
            if ( array2(k,j,i) /= i+j+k ) ne = ne+1
          end do
        end do
      end do
     write (*,*) ng,' elements : ',ne,' errors detected', sec(), ' sec'
!
     n = n3
     gb = real(size(array3))*8. / (1024.**3)
     write (*,*) ' '
     write (*,*) 'Initialising Array 3 gb =',gb, sec()
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            array3(k,j,i) = i+j+k
          end do
        end do
      end do
!
     write (*,*) 'Checking Array 3', sec()
      ne = 0
      ng = 0
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            ng = ng+1
            if ( array3(k,j,i) /= i+j+k ) ne = ne+1
          end do
        end do
      end do
     write (*,*) ng,' elements : ',ne,' errors detected', sec(), ' sec'
!
     end

   real*4 function sec ()
     integer*4 clock, rate
     integer*4 :: start = -1
!
     call system_clock ( clock, rate )
     if ( start < 0) start = clock
     sec = real(clock-start) / real (rate)
   end function sec     
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnCampbell



Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1803
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The run report is
Code:
 

 Initialising Array 1 gb =    7.450581E-03     0.00000     sec

 Checking Array 1    1.130000E-02 sec

      1000000 elements :            0 errors detected    2.020000E-02 sec

 

 Initialising Array 2 gb =     2.14201        2.030000E-02 sec

 Checking Array 2     1.72930     sec

    287496000 elements :            0 errors detected     3.05930     sec

 

 Initialising Array 3 gb =     4.57559         3.05940   

 Checking Array 3     6.69010   

    614125000 elements :            0 errors detected     9.51930     sec



This is very impressive!!

It will make converting existing 32 bit programs much easier than with other compilers, as you just have to change the array sizes.
I would still recommend use of ALLOCATE, especially for any large local arrays, as it is the best way to overcome stack overflow errors.

John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnCampbell



Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1803
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tidied up the test to show arrays larger than 2gb can be transferred through subroutine calls.
Code:
 integer*4, parameter :: n1 = 100
 integer*4, parameter :: n2 = 660
 integer*4, parameter :: n3 = 850
!
 real*8 Array1, Array2, Array3
 common /commbl1/ Array1(n1,n1,n1)
 common /commbl2/ Array2(n2,n2,n2)
 common /commbl3/ Array3(n3,n3,n3)
!
! Now if i increase it 1000 times to 8GB
!
  call test (array1, n1, 1)
  call test (array2, n2, 2)
  call test (array3, n3, 3)
!
  write (*,*) 'end of test'
  end
 
  subroutine test ( array, n, id)
   integer*4 n, id
   real*8    array(n,n,n) 
!
   integer*4 i,j,k,ne, ng
   real*4    gb, sec
   external  sec
!
     gb = real(size(array))*8. / (1024.**3)
     write (*,*) ' '
     write (*,11) 'Initialising Array ',id,' gb =',gb, sec(), ' sec'
11   format (a,i0,a,2f8.3,a)
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            array(k,j,i) = i+j+k
          end do
        end do
      end do
!
     write (*,12) 'Checking Array 1', sec(), ' sec'
12   format (a,f8.3,a)     
      ne = 0
      ng = 0
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            ng = ng+1
            if ( array(k,j,i) /= i+j+k ) ne = ne+1
          end do
        end do
      end do
     write (*,13) ng,' elements : ',ne,' errors detected', sec(), ' sec'
13   format (i10,a,i10,a,f10.3,a)
!
   end subroutine test

   real*4 function sec ()
     integer*4 clock, rate
     integer*4 :: start = -1
!
     call system_clock ( clock, rate )
     if ( start < 0) start = clock
     sec = real(clock-start) / real (rate)
   end function sec     

The results are:
Code:
 

Initialising Array 1 gb =   0.007   0.000 sec

Checking Array 1   0.009 sec

   1000000 elements :          0 errors detected     0.017 sec

 

Initialising Array 2 gb =   2.142   0.017 sec

Checking Array 1   2.414 sec

 287496000 elements :          0 errors detected     3.767 sec

 

Initialising Array 3 gb =   4.576   3.767 sec

Checking Array 1   8.821 sec

 614125000 elements :          0 errors detected    11.707 sec

 end of test


This is looking very good, although I have only tested programs that are bug free. ( I hope!!)

There are new skills to learn with 64 bit, especially learning to avoid exceeding the physical memory limit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulLaidler
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 4997
Location: Salford, UK

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dan

1) Hopefully John has provided the answer.

2) /debug with SDBG etc. all require extending to 64 bits and will be released in due course.

3) Purchasing information to follow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnCampbell



Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1803
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A further test that shows:
array larger than 2gb
array with more than 2^31 elements
use of SIZE and LOC as I*8
.. all working well
Code:
 integer*4, parameter :: n1 = 107
 integer*4, parameter :: n2 = 667
 integer*4, parameter :: n3 = 1357
!
 real*8 Array1, Array2         
 integer*2 Array3
 common /commbl1/ Array1(n1,n1,n1)    ! 9.0  mb,  1.2 m elements
 common /commbl2/ Array2(n2,n2,n2)    ! 2.21 gb,  297 m elements : test 2gb
 common /commbl3/ Array3(n3,n3,n3)    ! 4.65 gb,  2.4 g elements : test long addressing
!
! Now if i increase it 1000 times to 8GB
!
  call test8 (array1, n1, 1)
  call test8 (array2, n2, 2)
!
  call test2 (array3, n3, 3)
!
  write (*,*) 'end of test'
  end
 
  subroutine test8 ( array, n, id)
   integer*4 n, id
   real*8    array(n,n,n) 
!
   integer*4 i,j,k,ne
   integer*8 mem,ig, ng
   real*4    gb, sec
   external  sec
!
     ng = n
     ng = ng*ng*ng
     mem = loc(array)
     ig = ((mem/1024)/1024)/1024
     write (*,*) ' '
     gb = real(size(array))*8. / (1024.**3)
     write (*,11) 'Initialising Array ',id,' : gb = ',gb, sec(), ' sec'
11   format (a,i0,a,f0.3,f8.3,a)
     write (*,*) 'n    = ',n           
     write (*,*) 'ng   = ',ng         
     write (*,*) 'size = ',size(array)
     write (*,*) 'loc  = ',loc (array), ig
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            array(k,j,i) = i+j+k
          end do
        end do
      end do
!
     write (*,12) 'Checking Array ',id, sec(), ' sec'
12   format (a,i0,f8.3,a)     
      ne = 0
      ng = 0
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            ng = ng+1
            if ( array(k,j,i) /= i+j+k ) ne = ne+1
          end do
        end do
      end do
     write (*,13) ng,' elements : ',ne,' errors detected', sec(), ' sec'
13   format (i10,a,i10,a,f10.3,a)
!
   end subroutine test8

  subroutine test2 ( array, n, id)
   integer*4 n, id
   integer*2 array(n,n,n) 
!
   integer*4 i,j,k
   integer*8 ne,ng, mem, ig
   real*4    gb, sec
   external  sec
!
     ng = n
     ng = ng*ng*ng
     mem = loc(array)
     ig = ((mem/1024)/1024)/1024
     write (*,*) ' '
     gb = real(size(array))*2. / (1024.**3)
     write (*,11) 'Initialising Array ',id,' : gb = ',gb, sec(), ' sec'
11   format (a,i0,a,f0.3,f8.3,a)
     write (*,*) 'n    = ',n           
     write (*,*) 'ng   = ',ng         
     write (*,*) 'size = ',size(array)
     write (*,*) 'loc  = ',loc (array), ig
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            array(k,j,i) = i+j+k
          end do
        end do
      end do
!
     write (*,12) 'Checking Array ',id, sec(), ' sec'
12   format (a,i0,f8.3,a)     
      ne = 0
      ng = 0
      do i = 1,n
        do j = 1,n
          do k = 1,n
            ng = ng+1
            if ( array(k,j,i) /= i+j+k ) ne = ne+1
          end do
        end do
      end do
     write (*,13) ng,' elements : ',ne,' errors detected', sec(), ' sec'
13   format (i10,a,i10,a,f10.3,a)
!
   end subroutine test2

   real*4 function sec ()
     integer*4 clock, rate
     integer*4 :: start = -1
!
     call system_clock ( clock, rate )
     if ( start < 0) start = clock
     sec = real(clock-start) / real (rate)
   end function sec     


Results are[code:1:e1a2109e98]

Initialising Array 1 : gb = 0.009 0.000 sec
n = 107
ng =
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnCampbell



Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1803
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ctd
Results are
Code:
 

Initialising Array 1 : gb = 0.009   0.000 sec
 n    =          107
 ng   =               1225043
 size =               1225043
 loc  =              55050304                    0
Checking Array 1   0.014 sec
   1225043 elements :          0 errors detected     0.025 sec

Initialising Array 2 : gb = 2.211   0.025 sec
 n    =          667
 ng   =             296740963
 size =             296740963
 loc  =           24324997184                   22
Checking Array 2   2.160 sec
 296740963 elements :          0 errors detected     3.549 sec

Initialising Array 3 : gb = 4.654   3.549 sec
 n    =         1357
 ng   =            2498846293
 size =            2498846293
 loc  =           19327287360                   17
Checking Array 3  15.834 sec
2498846293 elements :          0 errors detected    26.092 sec

 end of test

The memory address of common is interesting, as large common start at 22 gb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
silverfrost
Site Admin


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 145
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 64-bit compiler will be supplied as part of a regular FTN95 release. Customers who have upgrade protection will receive it as part of their service.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DanRRight



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1618
Location: South Pole, Antarctica

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul,

If you compile the program PRG1 with /debug or /check then two ways exist of error reporting
1) if you just run PRG1 as is, the program will stop and the error will come in a window telling you about offending line number and error message

2) if you run program via debugger: SDBG PRG1 then the Fortran source will be opened at offending line where you can see all other variables too.

I suppose in 64bit mode option 2 with SDBG needs rebuilding of debugger to add functionality but option 1 is the same like it was. Why this functionality currently does not work? The Fortran source sizes are definitely not 4 billion lines long (mine are large but 10000x smaller then that) and the error message text is not related to 64bit

John,

Thanks for the good news. So the older programs can now get up to 32 GB RAM per each single array (4 billion numbers * 8bytes), or 10x more then before with /3GB switch (which also had the limit of 3-4GB total not per each array) and if you have many arrays then the sky is actually unlimited, is this correct ?

Is the moronic word "stack" burned and spread over the city dumb with this 64bit ?


Last edited by DanRRight on Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.silverfrost.com Forum Index -> General All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 1 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group