Fortran Why is the output format different for two similar Fortran codes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adishpatel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fortran
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around discrepancies in output formatting between two similar code files, dufing.f and Trial.f. The first file produces well-organized results, while the second yields a less structured output. The user is trying to understand why the outputs differ despite the codes being nearly identical, particularly in the handling of subroutine calls and output formatting.Key points include the observation that the first file's output is generated by a subroutine called PATH, which appears to handle output differently than the write statements in Trial.f. The user notes that even after commenting out certain lines in Trial.f to mimic the behavior of dufing.f, the output remains unformatted. There is speculation that a variable passed to the PATH subroutine may control its output, and the user is encouraged to check the source file or documentation for more details on how PATH functions. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding how subroutines interact with the main code and the potential impact on output formatting.
adishpatel
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
So, when I execute my code which is at http://sysden.com/dufing.f

I get the results which are very well organized:
Code:
 PATH  ==========================================================================================

            N         INP       JCASE         JOB        JBIF        ILAM        IJAC          IW
            2           0           3           1           0           2           1         500


 ** ZPAR   **        EPSZ          HZ         ITZ       METHZ
               0.1000D-08  0.1000D-04          40           1


 ** GPAR   **        EPSG          HG         ITG
               0.1000D-04  0.5000D-03          15


 ** PPAR   **        HMIN          HP        HMAX      FACINC      FACDEC         ITP       NSTEP
               0.1000D-04  0.1000D-01  0.1000D-01  0.2300D+01  0.8000D+00          15          60


 ** EQSOL  **        IODE         LRW         TOL
                        2         100  0.1000D-09
 XBIFUR **** THE BIFURCATION POINT NOT BRACKETED
             AT C( 1) =    0.1498235665D+01   C( 2) =    0.1500000000D+01
             THE EIGENVALUE IS  LAMDA =    0.1018821933D+01    0.0000000000D+00

             AT C( 1) =    0.1498244342D+01   C( 2) =    0.1500000000D+01
             THE EIGENVALUE IS  LAMDA =    0.1018486738D+01    0.0000000000D+00

             AT C( 1) =    0.1500185162D+01   C( 2) =    0.1500000000D+01
             THE EIGENVALUE IS  LAMDA =    0.1075632960D+01    0.0000000000D+00


 PATH  ==========================================================================================


On the other hand, I have a very very similar code with simply some formulas modified, I get the following output (http://sysden.com/Trial.f) :

Code:
 T =  0.1230D+02    X(1) =   -0.6995969146D-16    X(2) =   -0.8397826270D-14
 T =  0.1232D+02    X(1) =   -0.1296208881D-15    X(2) =    0.4397024319D-15
 T =  0.1233D+02    X(1) =   -0.6896299146D-16    X(2) =    0.8521701466D-14
 T =  0.1234D+02    X(1) =    0.4941227263D-16    X(2) =    0.8977390468D-14
 T =  0.1235D+02    X(1) =    0.1241519258D-15    X(2) =    0.1634297191D-14
 T =  0.1237D+02    X(1) =    0.9342308194D-16    X(2) =   -0.6885493191D-14
 T =  0.1238D+02    X(1) =   -0.1172392094D-16    X(2) =   -0.9706719735D-14
 T =  0.1239D+02    X(1) =   -0.1099822134D-15    X(2) =   -0.4513322049D-14
 T =  0.1240D+02    X(1) =   -0.1183246126D-15    X(2) =    0.4526377004D-14
 T =  0.1242D+02    X(1) =   -0.2783645508D-16    X(2) =    0.1001609073D-13
 T =  0.1243D+02    X(1) =    0.8740604234D-16    X(2) =    0.7396635050D-14
 T =  0.1244D+02    X(1) =    0.1334446529D-15    X(2) =   -0.1576740606D-14
 T =  0.1245D+02    X(1) =    0.6687026721D-16    X(2) =   -0.9388969273D-14
 T =  0.1247D+02    X(1) =   -0.5655341949D-16    X(2) =   -0.9486228884D-14
 T =  0.1248D+02    X(1) =   -0.1362274125D-15    X(2) =   -0.1479291222D-14
 T =  0.1249D+02    X(1) =   -0.1012353469D-15    X(2) =    0.7942125660D-14
 T =  0.1250D+02    X(1) =    0.1776983651D-16    X(2) =    0.1091033964D-13
 T =  0.1252D+02    X(1) =    0.1269133235D-15    X(2) =    0.4786738462D-14
 T =  0.1253D+02    X(1) =    0.1303159882D-15    X(2) =   -0.5510440636D-14
 T =  0.1254D+02    X(1) =    0.2519319926D-16    X(2) =   -0.1117597369D-13
 T =  0.1255D+02    X(1) =   -0.9953672094D-16    X(2) =   -0.7583895225D-14
 T =  0.1257D+02    X(1) =   -0.1393567280D-15    X(2) =    0.2126730762D-14


I want my output to be the way it is for the 1st file. Don't understand why the format differs?

I even commented the format bit from the Trail code and it still wouldn't give me the nicely organized results?

Code:
      INDEX=1
      T=0.0D+00
   17 FORMAT(' T =',D12.4,'    X(1) =',D20.10,'    X(2) =',D20.10)
      DO 18,  K=1,1000
         TEND = K*TPER/500
         CALL ODE2(FCN,JAC,IJAC,N,T,X,TEND,INDEX,IER)
         IF (X(1).GT.1.0D+01) GOTO 18
         WRITE(6,17) T,X(11),X(12)
         WRITE(3,*) T,X(11),X(12)
   18 CONTINUE
      STOP
 
Technology news on Phys.org
The computer will only do what you tell it to do. In the first case, it appears that subroutine PATH gives some output. In the second case, the output is coming from the write statements you wrote.
 
In dufing.f it has

Code:
      lamda = (0.1000d+01, 0.0000d+00)                                                                                          
c                                                                       
      tq(1) = tp(1)                                                     
      tq(2) = tp(2)                                                     
      tq(3) = tp(3)                                                     
      tq(4) = tp(4)                                                     
c                                                                       
      tp(1) = 0.0000d+00                                                
      tp(2) = 0.0000d+00                                                
      tp(3) = 0.0000d+00                                                
      tp(4) = 0.1000d+01

And Trial.f has the following instead:

Code:
C
      DO J=1,N+2
         TQ(J) = TP(J)
      END DO
C
      DO J=1,N+1
         TP(J) = 0.0000d+00
      END DO
      TP(N+2) = 1.0000d+00
C

I even commented out the following from Trial.f to let call path do the job as it does in dufing.f and still the results come out in a different way?

Code:
      INDEX=1
      T=0.0D+00
   17 FORMAT(' T =',D12.4,'    X(1) =',D20.10,'    X(2) =',D20.10)
      DO 18,  K=1,1000
         TEND = K*TPER/500
         CALL ODE2(FCN,JAC,IJAC,N,T,X,TEND,INDEX,IER)
         IF (X(1).GT.1.0D+01) GOTO 18
         WRITE(6,17) T,X(11),X(12)
         WRITE(3,*) T,X(11),X(12)
   18 CONTINUE
      STOP

Subroutine path? There are two instances where we define subroutine in dufing.f and 3 instances where we have "call path". It is the same for Trial.f as well. Also the code is no different than what I mentioned? Am I overlooking something here :O
 
adishpatel said:
In dufing.f it has

Code:
      lamda = (0.1000d+01, 0.0000d+00)                                                                                          
c                                                                       
      tq(1) = tp(1)                                                     
      tq(2) = tp(2)                                                     
      tq(3) = tp(3)                                                     
      tq(4) = tp(4)                                                     
c                                                                       
      tp(1) = 0.0000d+00                                                
      tp(2) = 0.0000d+00                                                
      tp(3) = 0.0000d+00                                                
      tp(4) = 0.1000d+01

And Trial.f has the following instead:

Code:
C
      DO J=1,N+2
         TQ(J) = TP(J)
      END DO
C
      DO J=1,N+1
         TP(J) = 0.0000d+00
      END DO
      TP(N+2) = 1.0000d+00
C
That's irrelevant. It doesn't concern output.

adishpatel said:
I even commented out the following from Trial.f to let call path do the job as it does in dufing.f and still the results come out in a different way?
I have no idea what the PATH subroutine is or does. It is possible that there is a certain variable passed to PATH that controls whether the subroutine produces any output. If you have the source file, you can check to see how PATH produces output. If it's in a library, you have to look at the documentation for that library.
 
I don't think the code shown could have printed the first output. It seems clear that PATH printed the first output. But the "STOP" after the "18 CONTINUE" line stops the program before PATH is executed. There are two write statements before the "STOP" that print the second output.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
I tried a web search "the loss of programming ", and found an article saying that all aspects of writing, developing, and testing software programs will one day all be handled through artificial intelligence. One must wonder then, who is responsible. WHO is responsible for any problems, bugs, deficiencies, or whatever malfunctions which the programs make their users endure? Things may work wrong however the "wrong" happens. AI needs to fix the problems for the users. Any way to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K