This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.
Howard, > To: address@hidden > From: "Howard M. Salis" <address@hidden> > Subject: Bug in NetCDF 3.6 beta6 netcdf_mp_nf90_get_var_1d_fourbyteint on > Itanium Linux > Organization: UCAR/Unidata > Keywords: 200411201943.iAKJhN7j020088 The above message contained the following: > I compiled NetCDF 3.6 beta 6 on an Itanium (64-bit) Linux machine > successfully (make test succeeded), but when I attempted to read a NetCDF > file one particular NetCDF function > 'netcdf_mp_nf90_get_var_1d_fourbyteint' died in a segmentation fault. > > I've doublechecked to make sure the NetCDF variable being read is an > array of small integer numbers. > > I'm using the Intel C/C++ and Fortran compilers and I've included the > -mp flags for both (as suggested in an archived support email solving a > previous problem someone else experienced). Because the cfortran.h file > doesn't recognize the Intel compilers, I've had to overwrite the existing > cfortran.h with the patched version of NetCDF 3.5's. No one has released a > patch for 3.6's cfortran.h (the line numbers were changed so the old patch > fails). > > I've installed NetCDF 3.5 on a different Itanium64 machine and I had no > problems. Did you try to duplicate the problem on the other Itanium64 machine using version 3.5 of the netCDF package? If so, what was the result? > I'm including the configure.log, config.log, make.log, test.log, and > install.log files as you request. Those files indicate that the netCDF package was successfully built and passed all its tests. > I've also included the output of uname > -a, the locations of the compilers, and the output of Intel's debugger, > idb, when I run my program. The program is called 'NHybrid-Debug' and the > bug occurs in file 'DataInput-new.f' in function 'InputModelData' in > module 'DataInput'. Can you supply us with a simple program that demonstrates the problem so that we can try to reproduce it? If you can't, then you might have to debug the problem yourself. I would start by rebuilding the netCDF package and your program using the "-g" (debug) option. Alternatively, can you give us access to your system? > I'd appreciate any help you could provide. I'm trying to get NetCDF > working on one of NCSA's Teragrid machines. I guess I can always go back > to v3.5, but I'd like to try out newer versions of NetCDF. Thank you. > > Sincerely, > Howard Salis > Dept Chemical Engineering & Materials Science > University of Minnesota > > > Linux tg-login1 2.4.21.SuSE_241.bef1 #1 SMP Thu Aug 12 12:03:48 CDT 2004 > ia64 unknown > > /opt/intel/compiler80/bin/ifort > /opt/intel/compiler80/bin/icc > > Thread received signal SEGV stopped at [<opaque> function > netcdf_mp_nf90_get_var_1d_fourbyteint_(...) 0x400000000008e350] > Information: An <opaque> type was presented during execution of the > previous command. For complete type information on this symbol, > recompilation of the program will be necessary. Consult the compiler man > pages for details on producing full symbol table information using the > '-g' (and '-gall' for cxx) flags. (idb) > > where > > >0 0x400000000008e350 in netcdf_mp_nf90_get_var_1d_fourbyteint_(...) in > NHybrid-Debug > > #1 0x4000000000132d20 in DATAINPUT::inputmodeldata() "DataInput-new.f":268 > > #2 0x4000000000191930 in mainprogram() > "mainprogramH-new.f":28 > > #3 0x4000000000004210 in main(...) in > NHybrid-Debug > > #4 0x20000000001f3fa0 in __libc_start_main(...) in > /lib/libc.so.6.1 > > #5 0x4000000000003c40 in _start(...) in NHybrid-Debug ... Regards, Steve Emmerson > NOTE: All email exchanges with Unidata User Support are recorded in the > Unidata inquiry tracking system and then made publicly available > through the web. If you do not want to have your interactions made > available in this way, you must let us know in each email you send to us.