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

Zero out arrays before use #354

Closed

Conversation

apcraig
Copy link
Contributor

@apcraig apcraig commented Mar 16, 2021

PR checklist

  • Short (1 sentence) summary of your PR:
    Zero out a few arrays before use, trapped via snan debug run
  • Developer(s):
    apcraig
  • Suggest PR reviewers from list in the column to the right.
  • Please copy the PR test results link or provide a summary of testing completed below.
    full test suite run on cheyenne, bit-for-bit. https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/Test-Results/wiki/icepack_by_hash_forks#213a227010291e0a6dfd4a5f9c58d1c2f46c5e48
  • How much do the PR code changes differ from the unmodified code?
    • bit for bit
    • different at roundoff level
    • more substantial
  • Does this PR create or have dependencies on CICE or any other models?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Does this PR add any new test cases?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Is the documentation being updated? ("Documentation" includes information on the wiki or in the .rst files from doc/source/, which are used to create the online technical docs at https://readthedocs.org/projects/cice-consortium-cice/.)
    • Yes
    • No, does the documentation need to be updated at a later time?
      • Yes
      • No
  • Please provide any additional information or relevant details below:

Related to CICE-Consortium/CICE#560 and CICE-Consortium/CICE#247

@apcraig
Copy link
Contributor Author

apcraig commented Mar 16, 2021

This passes all testing on cheyenne, bit-for-bit, with all compilers in Icepack and CICE, but GHActions is unhappy with one test (swccsm3) and aborts. As a result, I am going to close this PR without merging and revisit again later.

@apcraig apcraig closed this Mar 16, 2021
@phil-blain
Copy link
Member

For reference, here is the output from the failed test:
https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/Icepack/pull/354/checks#step:13:359

Copy link
Contributor

@dabail10 dabail10 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks fine. I somehow thought these were initialized before the call to icepack_step_radiation and hence the intent(inout). Perhaps these should just be intent(out)?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants