<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2>Hello
Andrey,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2>I’ve
observed that strange compilation dependent phenomena, too. Number cycles in
both compilation cases are different but <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>a final effect at self-consistency
level seems to be the same and that is more important. <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I tested a few manual example <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>properties <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>as for DOS, etc. and they all look
sensible.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It can suggest some
different calculation precision on different “layered” architecture. I will try
to run more benchmarks, but it takes some time.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT size=2>I think
so your benchmark results are very OK for Core 2 Duo desktop. Did you
compare it to some MKL9 linking runs as for
timing?<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><o:p><FONT face="Courier New"
size=2> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT
size=2>Greetings,<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US"><FONT face="Courier New"><FONT
size=2>Andrzej<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><PRE>>Hello Andrzej,
>Sorry for delayed answer as I've been away from the mailing list a while. I've run some benchmarks on my computer (Intel Core2Duo T6400 @ 2.13 GHz, 1 GB RAM with Fedora 7) using my default and your pure layered compiler options. All programs compiled, linked and executed successfully with -O3 -xT, including lapw2, so your problem should lie in some system (or 3rd party) libraries.
>The results of the benchmark (fccni as shown in the UG) are 24 secs with my default model vs. 21 secs with your pure layered model. What bothers me most is the difference in results - it needs 4 cycles to converge with my parameters and 3 cycles w/yours. I'd like to ask whether you observed such a behaviour in your benchmarks. Now I'll try other systems to see if the results obtained are significantly different.
>Cheers,
>Andrey.</PRE></DIV></BODY></HTML>