I am currently porting some software from an old Power Hawk to an iHawk Concurrent system. My fortran compiler is the Concurrent cf77 . No, I don't have the option to switch to gfortran, I need some compiler flags of this compiler.
In multiple *.f files I need the length of continuous characters let's call them "strings".
In the past we had a company internal library providing me therefore a function
lstr = lg(str)
This function is now not available anymore.
So the variables I am trying to get the length of are declared as following:
integer function number(str, state)
implicit none
character str*(*)
integer*1 z/ '30'x /
integer*2 j,i
j = lg(str)
do i=1 , j
num = ichar( str(i:i) ) - z
if(num.lt.0) then
state = 1
return
end if
end do
state= 0
return
end
So what I tried is this len() method instead of lg() but this gives me the compile error:
file.f: XXX undefined reference to `len_'
So I thought I am not this stupid, perhaps it is the do not add underscore problem, so for Concurrent it is sufficient to declare it as CEXTERNAL:
CEXTERNAL len
Haha , no the super not smart dev has now the following error:
file.f: XXX undefined reference to `len'
I am currently compiling / linking with the following flags:
cf77 -g --cpu=pentium -c -Nt5000 -lpthread $#
cf77 -g --cpu=pentium -o -Wl,-rpath-link=/usr/lib,-lc,/usr/lib/librt.a $#
Comment: --cpu=pentium is cross compiling for a 32-bit target
machine on a 64-bit machine with a 64-bit compiler. with
-Wl,-rpath-link= (...) I hand down the flags to the linker. If I
leave that out like using only: -L/usr/lib -lc I get the following:
/usr/lib/librt.so: undefined reference to `__pthread_unwind#GLIBC_PRIVATE'
/usr/lib/librt.so: undefined reference to ¸pthread_sigmask#GLIBC2.0'
etc. a bunch of them. Adding librt.a is resulting then the same. Only
handing it down with -Wl,-rpath-link= arg, arg, arg is working.
Am I perhaps just missing the correct library? Is this len() method really doing what I need it for or do you have any suggestions?
Related
Here is the source (lets call it test4.F):
do 10 i=1
write(*,*) i
10 continue
end
With gfortran:
$gfortran test4.F
$./a.out
-259911288
with ifort:
$ifort test4.F
$./a.out
0
I know the syntax is incorrect. So both should throw compile-time errors.
Your test program is indeed not valid Fortran, but there isn't a syntax problem.
When the file has a .F suffix both gfortran and ifort assume that the program uses fixed form source. In fixed form source, blanks in statements aren't significant (outside character contexts). Your program is equivalent to:
do10i=1
write(*,*) i
10 continue
end
With comments:
do10i=1 ! Set the real variable do10i to value 1
write(*,*) i ! Write the undefined integer variable i
10 continue ! Do nothing
end ! End execution
Because of implicit typing you have a defaul real variable do10i and so there isn't a syntax error for a do control, and there isn't a do control that sets i to 1.
Instead your program is invalid because you are referencing the value of i although it hasn't first been defined (because it isn't a loop variable). But this isn't an error the compiler has to complain about at compile time (or even run time). A compiler is allowed to print any value it likes. gfortran chose one, ifort another.
Liberal use of implicit none and avoiding fixed-form source are good ways to avoid many programming errors. In this case, use of an end do instead of continue would also alert the compiler to the fact that you intended there to be some looping.
Which version of gfortran are you using? With gfortran-6, the following
PROGRAM MAIN
USE ISO_FORTRAN_ENV, ONLY:
1 COMPILER_VERSION,
2 COMPILER_OPTIONS
C EXPLICIT TYPING ONLY
IMPLICIT NONE
C VARIABLE DECLARATIONS
INTEGER I
DO 10 I = 1
WRITE (*,*) I
10 CONTINUE
PRINT '(/4A/)',
1 'THIS FILE WAS COMPILED USING ', COMPILER_VERSION(),
2 ' USING THE OPTIONS ', COMPILER_OPTIONS()
END PROGRAM MAIN
indeed throws the error
main.F:13:13:
DO 10 I = 1
1
Error: Symbol ‘do10i’ at (1) has no IMPLICIT type
I suspect that test4.F does not include the implicit none statement. Consequently, DO 10 I = 1 is interpreted as an implicitly defined real variable DO10I = 1. Here is a sample of a fixed form statement showing what are now (post Fortran 90) considered significant blanks followed by an equivalent statement without the blanks
DO I=1 , M AX ITER S
DO I = 1 , MAXITERS
Upshot, always use explicit variable declarations in all your programs. Better yet, only write Fortran in free source form main.f90. Free source form is more compatible with modern interactive input devices than fixed form. The maximum line length is 132 characters, compared to the older limit of 72 characters. This reduces the possibility of text exceeding the limit, which could lead the compiler to misinterpret names. Here's the same code in free source form
program main
use ISO_Fortran_env, only: &
stdout => OUTPUT_UNIT, &
compiler_version, &
compiler_options
! Explicit typing only
implicit none
! Variable declarations
integer :: i
do i = 1, 3
write (stdout, *) i
end do
print '(/4a/)', &
' This file was compiled using ', compiler_version(), &
' using the options ', compiler_options()
end program main
and
gfortran-6 -std=f2008ts -o main.exe main.f90
./main.exe
yields
1
2
3
This file was compiled using GCC version 6.1.1 20160802 using the options -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -std=f2008ts
I'm trying to figure out how to use quadpack.
In a single folder, I located the contents of "qag.f plus dependencies" and the code blow as qag_test.f:
(maybe this code itself is not very important. This is in fact just a snippet from the quadpack document)
REAL A,ABSERR,B,EPSABS,EPSREL,F,RESULT,WORK
INTEGER IER,IWORK,KEY,LAST,LENW,LIMIT,NEVAL
DIMENSION IWORK(100),WORK(400)
EXTERNAL F
A = 0.0E0
B = 1.0E0
EPSABS = 0.0E0
EPSREL = 1.0E-3
KEY = 6
LIMIT = 100
LENW = LIMIT*4
CALL QAG(F,A,B,EPSABS,EPSREL,KEY,RESULT,ABSERR,NEVAL,
* IER,LIMIT,LENW,LAST,IWORK,WORK)
C INCLUDE WRITE STATEMENTS
STOP
END
C
REAL FUNCTION F(X)
REAL X
F = 2.0E0/(2.0E0+SIN(31.41592653589793E0*X))
RETURN
END
Using gfortran *.f (installed as MinGW 64bit), I got:
C:\Users\username\AppData\Local\Temp\ccIQwFEt.o:qag.f:(.text+0x1e0): undefined re
ference to `xerror_'
C:\Users\username\AppData\Local\Temp\cc6XR3D0.o:qage.f:(.text+0x83): undefined re
ference to `r1mach_'
(and a lot more of the same r1mach_ error)
It seems r1mach is a part of BLAS (and I don't know why it's not packaged in here but obtained as "auxiliary"), but what is xerror?
How do I properly compile this snippet in my environment, Win7 64bit (hopefully without Cygwin)?
Your help is very much appreciated.
xerror is an error reporting routine. Looking at the way it is called, it appears to use Hollerith constants (the ones where "foo" is written as 3hfoo).
if(ier.ne.0) call xerror(26habnormal return from qag ,
* 26,ier,lvl)
xerror in turn calls xerrwv, passing along the arguments (plus a few more).
This was definitely written before Fortran 77 became widespread.
Your best bet would be to use a compiler which still supports Hollerith constants, pull in all the dependencies (xeerwv has a few more, I don't know why you didn't get them from netlib) and run it through the compiler of your choice. Most compilers, including gfortran, support Hollerith; just ignore the warnings :-)
You will possibly need to modify one routine, that is xerprt. With gfortran, you could write this one as
subroutine xerprt(c,n)
character(len=1), dimension(n) :: c
write (*,'(500A)') c
end subroutine xerprt
and put this one into a separate file so that the compiler doesn't catch the rank violation (I know, I know...)
I compiled a program in CodeBlocks (which uses gcc) and it was working fine.
Now I tried to compile the same program using gcc from command line. it produced this error:
error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
for these four lines :
OutArray[Index[g]].real() = TempVBF.FirstReal[g];
OutArray[Index[g]].imag() = TempVBF.FirstImag[g];
OutArray[Index[g]+ElementSize].real() = TempVBF.SecondReal[g];
OutArray[Index[g]+ElementSize].imag() = TempVBF.SecondImag[g];
in these line I've four values containing real and imaginary parts of 2 complex numbers. and I'm assigning those values to 2 complex variables.
I tried to do it like this:
OutArray[Index[g]] = (TempVBF.FirstReal[g],TempVBF.FirstImag[g]);
that compiled but generated wrong values in run time
why did it compile first but not now ?? what option can i use to get around this without changing those lines ??
I'm using the command :
gcc lib/Globals.cpp lib/Comp/SNT_FFT_Comp.cpp lib/Comp/ST_FFT_Comp.cpp lib/Comp/VNT_FFT_Comp.cpp lib/Comp/VT_FFT_Comp.cpp lib/Decomp/* test/main.cpp -lpthread -std=gnu++0x -o TEST
removing -std=gnu++0x produces a lot more errors . changing it to -std=c++0x changes nothing.
The error you're seeing is almost certainly because real() and imag() return the value of the real or imaginary part; not a reference to it. Without seeing the code, it's impossible to know for sure, but it would be much more likely to be defined like this:
double real() const { return this->_real; }
than like this:
double& real() { return this->_real; }
With the latter case, you could use the reference to perform an assignment. With the former case, you have a copy of the real part of your complex number, and you can't change your complex number with that. You can read more about lhvalues and rhvalues if you want.
As for why it didn't work in the first place, that's almost impossible to answer. The code you provided seems to be missing a type -- in other words, it looks like you should do something like this:
OutArray[Index[g]] = MyComplexNumberClass(TempVBF.FirstReal[g],TempVBF.FirstImag[g]);
Why the values are wrong could be due to a great many things (memory stomps, the index "g" being wrong, the complex numbers not having the values you think they should have, etc). To debug that, you can try printing the value of things step by step until you see something you don't expect, either with std::cerr or by using gbd.
Is it possible to compile a C++ (or the like) program without generating the executable file but writing it and executing it directly from memory?
For example with GCC and clang, something that has a similar effect to:
c++ hello.cpp -o hello.x && ./hello.x $# && rm -f hello.x
In the command line.
But without the burden of writing an executable to disk to immediately load/rerun it.
(If possible, the procedure may not use disk space or at least not space in the current directory which might be read-only).
Possible? Not the way you seem to wish. The task has two parts:
1) How to get the binary into memory
When we specify /dev/stdout as output file in Linux we can then pipe into our program x0 that reads
an executable from stdin and executes it:
gcc -pipe YourFiles1.cpp YourFile2.cpp -o/dev/stdout -Wall | ./x0
In x0 we can just read from stdin until reaching the end of the file:
int main(int argc, const char ** argv)
{
const int stdin = 0;
size_t ntotal = 0;
char * buf = 0;
while(true)
{
/* increasing buffer size dynamically since we do not know how many bytes to read */
buf = (char*)realloc(buf, ntotal+4096*sizeof(char));
int nread = read(stdin, buf+ntotal, 4096);
if (nread<0) break;
ntotal += nread;
}
memexec(buf, ntotal, argv);
}
It would also be possible for x0 directly execute the compiler and read the output. This question has been answered here: Redirecting exec output to a buffer or file
Caveat: I just figured out that for some strange reason this does not work when I use pipe | but works when I use the x0 < foo.
Note: If you are willing to modify your compiler or you do JIT like LLVM, clang and other frameworks you could directly generate executable code. However for the rest of this discussion I assume you want to use an existing compiler.
Note: Execution via temporary file
Other programs such as UPX achieve a similar behavior by executing a temporary file, this is easier and more portable than the approach outlined below. On systems where /tmp is mapped to a RAM disk for example typical servers, the temporary file will be memory based anyway.
#include<cstring> // size_t
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <stdio.h> // perror
#include <stdlib.h> // mkostemp
#include <sys/stat.h> // O_WRONLY
#include <unistd.h> // read
int memexec(void * exe, size_t exe_size, const char * argv)
{
/* random temporary file name in /tmp */
char name[15] = "/tmp/fooXXXXXX";
/* creates temporary file, returns writeable file descriptor */
int fd_wr = mkostemp(name, O_WRONLY);
/* makes file executable and readonly */
chmod(name, S_IRUSR | S_IXUSR);
/* creates read-only file descriptor before deleting the file */
int fd_ro = open(name, O_RDONLY);
/* removes file from file system, kernel buffers content in memory until all fd closed */
unlink(name);
/* writes executable to file */
write(fd_wr, exe, exe_size);
/* fexecve will not work as long as there in a open writeable file descriptor */
close(fd_wr);
char *const newenviron[] = { NULL };
/* -fpermissive */
fexecve(fd_ro, argv, newenviron);
perror("failed");
}
Caveat: Error handling is left out for clarities sake. Includes for sake of brevity.
Note: By combining step main() and memexec() into a single function and using splice(2) for copying directly between stdin and fd_wr the program could be significantly optimized.
2) Execution directly from memory
One does not simply load and execute an ELF binary from memory. Some preparation, mostly related to dynamic linking, has to happen. There is a lot of material explaining the various steps of the ELF linking process and studying it makes me believe that theoretically possible. See for example this closely related question on SO however there seems not to exist a working solution.
Update UserModeExec seems to come very close.
Writing a working implementation would be very time consuming, and surely raise some interesting questions in its own right. I like to believe this is by design: for most applications it is strongly undesirable to (accidentially) execute its input data because it allows code injection.
What happens exactly when an ELF is executed? Normally the kernel receives a file name and then creates a process, loads and maps the different sections of the executable into memory, performs a lot of sanity checks and marks it as executable before passing control and a file name back to the run-time linker ld-linux.so (part of libc). The takes care of relocating functions, handling additional libraries, setting up global objects and jumping to the executables entry point. AIU this heavy lifting is done by dl_main() (implemented in libc/elf/rtld.c).
Even fexecve is implemented using a file in /proc and it is this need for a file name that leads us to reimplement parts of this linking process.
Libraries
UserModeExec
libelf -- read, modify, create ELF files
eresi -- play with elfes
OSKit (seems like a dead project though)
Reading
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1060?page=0,0 -- introduction
http://wiki.osdev.org/ELF -- good overview
http://s.eresi-project.org/inc/articles/elf-rtld.txt -- more detailed Linux-specific explanation
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/33340/Code-Injection-into-Running-Linux-Application -- how to get to hello world
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~charngda/elf.html -- nice reference of ELF structure
Loaders and Linkers by John Levine -- deeoer explanation of linking
Related Questions at SO
Linux user-space ELF loader
ELF Dynamic loader symbol lookup ordering
load-time ELF relocation
How do global variables get initialized by the elf loader
So it seems possible, you decide whether is also practical.
Yes, though doing it properly requires designing significant parts of the compiler with this in mind. The LLVM guys have done this, first with a kinda-separate JIT, and later with the MC subproject. I don't think there's a ready-made tool doing it. But in principle, it's just a matter of linking to clang and llvm, passing the source to clang, and passing the IR it creates to MCJIT. Maybe a demo does this (I vaguely recall a basic C interpreter that worked like this, though I think it was based on the legacy JIT).
Edit: Found the demo I recalled. Also, there's cling, which seems to do basically what I described, but better.
Linux can create virtual file systems in RAM using tempfs. For example, I have my tmp directory set up in my file system table like so:
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs nodev,nosuid 0 0
Using this, any files I put in /tmp are stored in my RAM.
Windows doesn't seem to have any "official" way of doing this, but has many third-party options.
Without this "RAM disk" concept, you would likely have to heavily modify a compiler and linker to operate completely in memory.
If you are not specifically tied to C++, you may also consider other JIT based solutions:
in Common Lisp SBCL is able to generate machine code on the fly
you could use TinyCC and its libtcc.a which emits quickly poor (i.e. unoptimized) machine code from C code in memory.
consider also any JITing library, e.g. libjit, GNU Lightning, LLVM, GCCJIT, asmjit
of course emitting C++ code on some tmpfs and compiling it...
But if you want good machine code, you'll need it to be optimized, and that is not fast (so the time to write to a filesystem is negligible).
If you are tied to C++ generated code, you need a good C++ optimizing compiler (e.g. g++ or clang++); they take significant time to compile C++ code to optimized binary, so you should generate to some file foo.cc (perhaps in a RAM file system like some tmpfs, but that would give a minor gain, since most of the time is spent inside g++ or clang++ optimization passes, not reading from disk), then compile that foo.cc to foo.so (using perhaps make, or at least forking g++ -Wall -shared -O2 foo.cc -o foo.so, perhaps with additional libraries). At last have your main program dlopen that generated foo.so. FWIW, MELT was doing exactly that, and on Linux workstation the manydl.c program shows that a process can generate then dlopen(3) many hundred thousands of temporary plugins, each one being obtained by generating a temporary C file and compiling it. For C++ read the C++ dlopen mini HOWTO.
Alternatively, generate a self-contained source program foobar.cc, compile it to an executable foobarbin e.g. with g++ -O2 foobar.cc -o foobarbin and execute with execve that foobarbin executable binary
When generating C++ code, you may want to avoid generating tiny C++ source files (e.g. a dozen lines only; if possible, generate C++ files of a few hundred lines at least; unless lots of template expansion happens thru extensive use of existing C++ containers, where generating a small C++ function combining them makes sense). For instance, try if possible to put several generated C++ functions in the same generated C++ file (but avoid having very big generated C++ functions, e.g. 10KLOC in a single function; they take a lot of time to be compiled by GCC). You could consider, if relevant, to have only one single #include in that generated C++ file, and pre-compile that commonly included header.
Jacques Pitrat's book Artificial Beings, the conscience of a conscious machine (ISBN 9781848211018) explains in details why generating code at runtime is useful (in symbolic artificial intelligence systems like his CAIA system). The RefPerSys project is trying to follow that idea and generate some C++ code (and hopefully, more and more of it) at runtime. Partial evaluation is a relevant concept.
Your software is likely to spend more CPU time in generating C++ code than GCC in compiling it.
tcc compiler "-run" option allows for exactly this, compile into memory, run there and finally discard the compiled stuff. No filesystem space needed. "tcc -run" can be used in shebang to allow for C script, from tcc man page:
#!/usr/local/bin/tcc -run
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("Hello World\n");
return 0;
}
C scripts allow for mixed bash/C scripts, with "tcc -run" not needing any temporary space:
#!/bin/bash
echo "foo"
sed -n "/^\/\*\*$/,\$p" $0 | tcc -run -
exit
/**
*/
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("bar\n");
return 0;
}
Execution output:
$ ./shtcc2
foo
bar
$
C scripts with gcc are possible as well, but need temporary space like others mentioned to store executable. This script produces same output as the previous one:
#!/bin/bash
exc=/tmp/`basename $0`
if [ $0 -nt $exc ]; then sed -n "/^\/\*\*$/,\$p" $0 | gcc -x c - -o $exc; fi
echo "foo"
$exc
exit
/**
*/
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("bar\n");
return 0;
}
C scripts with suffix ".c" are nice, headtail.c was my first ".c" file that needed to be executable:
$ echo -e "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7" | ./headtail.c
1
2
3
6
7
$
I like C scripts, because you just have one file, you can easily move around, and changes in bash or C part require no further action, they just work on next execution.
P.S:
The above shown "tcc -run" C script has a problem, C script stdin is not available for executed C code. Reason was that I passed extracted C code via pipe to "tcc -run". New gist run_from_memory_stdin.c does it correctly:
...
echo "foo"
tcc -run <(sed -n "/^\/\*\*$/,\$p" $0) 42
...
"foo" is printed by bash part, "bar 42" from C part (42 is passed argv[1]), and piped script input gets printed from C code then:
$ route -n | ./run_from_memory_stdin.c
foo
bar 42
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
0.0.0.0 172.29.58.98 0.0.0.0 UG 306 0 0 wlan1
10.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 303 0 0 wlan0
172.29.58.96 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U 306 0 0 wlan1
$
One can easily modify the compiler itself. It sounds hard first but thinking about it, it seams obvious. So modifying the compiler sources directly expose a library and make it a shared library should not take that much of afford (depending on the actual implementation).
Just replace every file access with a solution of a memory mapped file.
It is something I am about to do with compiling something transparently in the background to op codes and execute those from within Java.
-
But thinking about your original question it seams you want to speed up compilation and your edit and run cycle. First of all get a SSD-Disk you get almost memory speed (use a PCI version) and lets say its C we are talking about. C does this linking step resulting in very complex operations that are likely to take more time than reading and writing from / to disk. So just put everything on SSD and live with the lag.
Finally the answer to OP question is yes!
I found memrun repo from guitmz, that demoed running (x86_64) ELF from memory, with golang and assembler. I forked that, and provided C version of memrun, that runs ELF binaries (verified on x86_64 and armv7l), either from standard input, or via first argument process substitution. The repo contains demos and documentation (memrun.c is 47 lines of code only):
https://github.com/Hermann-SW/memrun/tree/master/C#memrun
Here is simplest example, with "-o /dev/fd/1" gcc compiled ELF gets sent to stdout, and piped to memrun, which executes it:
pi#raspberrypi400:~/memrun/C $ gcc info.c -o /dev/fd/1 | ./memrun
My process ID : 20043
argv[0] : ./memrun
no argv[1]
evecve --> /usr/bin/ls -l /proc/20043/fd
total 0
lr-x------ 1 pi pi 64 Sep 18 22:27 0 -> 'pipe:[1601148]'
lrwx------ 1 pi pi 64 Sep 18 22:27 1 -> /dev/pts/4
lrwx------ 1 pi pi 64 Sep 18 22:27 2 -> /dev/pts/4
lr-x------ 1 pi pi 64 Sep 18 22:27 3 -> /proc/20043/fd
pi#raspberrypi400:~/memrun/C $
The reason I was interested in this topic was usage in "C script"s. run_from_memory_stdin.c demonstrates all together:
pi#raspberrypi400:~/memrun/C $ wc memrun.c | ./run_from_memory_stdin.c
foo
bar 42
47 141 1005 memrun.c
pi#raspberrypi400:~/memrun/C $
The C script producing shown output is so small ...
#!/bin/bash
echo "foo"
./memrun <(gcc -o /dev/fd/1 -x c <(sed -n "/^\/\*\*$/,\$p" $0)) 42
exit
/**
*/
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
printf("bar %s\n", argc>1 ? argv[1] : "(undef)");
for(int c=getchar(); EOF!=c; c=getchar()) { putchar(c); }
return 0;
}
P.S:
I added tcc's "-run" option to gcc and g++, for details see:
https://github.com/Hermann-SW/memrun/tree/master/C#adding-tcc--run-option-to-gcc-and-g
Just nice, and nothing gets stored in filesystem:
pi#raspberrypi400:~/memrun/C $ uname -a | g++ -O3 -Wall -run demo.cpp 42
bar 42
Linux raspberrypi400 5.10.60-v7l+ #1449 SMP Wed Aug 25 15:00:44 BST 2021 armv7l GNU/Linux
pi#raspberrypi400:~/memrun/C $
Thank you for having a look at this problem.
Problem:
seg. fault when returning from f90 subroutine that contains KINSOL solving process, after the correct computation result has been generated. No problem when the same solving process is in the main program.
Environment:
linux,
gcc,
sundials static libs
How to initiate the problem:
get the attached REDUCED test code
module moduleNonlinearSolve
integer,save::nEq
contains
subroutine solveNonlinear(u)
double precision::u(*)
integer iout(15),ier
double precision rout(2),koefScal(nEq)
koefScal(:)=1d0
call fnvinits(3,nEq,ier)
call fkinmalloc(iout,rout,ier)
call fkinspgmr(50,10,ier)
call fkinsol(u,1,koefScal,koefScal,ier)
call fkinfree()
do i=1,nEq
write(*,*),i,u(i)
end do
end subroutine
end module
subroutine fkfun(u,fval,ier)
use moduleNonlinearSolve
double precision::u(*)
double precision::fval(*)
integer::ier
forall(i=2:nEq-1)
fval(i)=-u(i-1)+2d0*u(i)-u(i+1)-1d0
end forall
fval(1)=u(1)+2d0*u(1)-u(2)-1d0
fval(nEq)=-u(nEq-1)+2d0*u(nEq)+u(nEq)-1d0
ier=0
end subroutine
program test
use moduleNonLinearSolve
double precision u(10)
nEq=size(u)
u(:)=10d0
call solveNonlinear(u)
end program``
compile
$ gfortran -c -Wall -g test.f90
$ gfortran -Wall -g -o test test.o -lsundials_fkinsol -lsundials_fnvecserial -lsundials_kinsol -lsundials_nvecserial -llapack -lblas
run
$ ./test
Note: It would work flawlessly if put all the SUNDIALS procedures in the main program.
Thank you very much for any input.
Mianzhi
According to the KINSOL documentation, the first argument of fkinmalloc must be of the same integer type as the C type long int. In your case, long int is 8 bytes long, but you are passing in an array of 4 byte integers. This will lead to fkinmalloc trying to write beyond the bounds of the array, and into some other memory. This typically leads to memory corruption, which has symptoms just like what you are observing: Crash at some random later point, such as when returning from a function. You should be able to confirm this by running the program through valgrind, which will probably report invalid writes of size 8. Anyway, replacing
integer :: iout(15)
with
integer*8 :: iout(15)
should solve the problem.