This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Random seed initialization
- From: Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist dot janne at gmail dot com>
- To: Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Angelo Graziosi <angelo dot graziosi at alice dot it>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:43:59 +0300
- Subject: Re: Random seed initialization
- References: <51603400 dot 3030705 at alice dot it> <CAKwh3qgG=pPbKyE6YT8H9++E_74uKmFC0UKG+Q3cW8bxYHVHRw at mail dot gmail dot com> <51603FEF dot 9020300 at alice dot it> <516042C9 dot 9010002 at alice dot it> <CAKwh3qgKztRYUGh-OjsRatsEqK=TmAF2+62S3jQfd8DkhUYi-Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> Could you please post the output of:
>
>
> PROGRAM test_system_clock
> INTEGER(4) :: count4, rate4, max4
> INTEGER(8) :: count8, rate8, max8
>
> CALL SYSTEM_CLOCK(count4, rate4, max4)
> WRITE(*,*) count4, rate4, max4
>
> CALL SYSTEM_CLOCK(count8, rate8, max8)
> WRITE(*,*) count8, rate8, max8
> END PROGRAM
Hello Angelo,
now that you apparently have managed to build current trunk on cygwin,
can you post the output of the above test program again? I'd like to
confirm that my patch to improve system_clock on mingw and cygwin
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-04/msg00147.html ) actually works.
GetTickCount and AFAIU QueryPerformanceCounter as well should return a
count of zero at boot time, so if you could also verify that the
counts are consistent with the uptime of your computer that would give
a bit of extra confidence that it works as expected.
--
Janne Blomqvist