version number, input, and compiling errors

[ccameron]

Hi Rich,

Here are a couple of things I've noticed when trying out the latest version.

1) I've tried to pull the latest version (0.9.5) but I'm still getting the version number listed as 0.9.4. Although some of the newer features (e.g. the calling sequence of gyre_ad namelist instead of gyre_ad < namelist) are in the latest version I'm getting.

2) I've also been getting the following error when compiling the non-adiabatic code:

FC gyre_nad.f90
gyre_nad.f90:131.30:

call init_scan(unit, bc, omega)
1
Error: Type mismatch in argument 'op' at (1); passed REAL(8) to TYPE(oscpar_t)
gyre_nad.f90:148.38:

call write_data(unit, nad_ef, bc)
1
Error: More actual than formal arguments in procedure call at (1)
make: *** [gyre_nad.o] Error 1

3) The code accepts frequencies <= 0 in the scan namelist. The code crashes on freq_min = 0.

4) The code also accepts l < 0 in the osc namelist.


Chris

[rhtownsend]

ccameron wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> Here are a couple of things I've noticed when trying out the latest version.
>
> 1) I've tried to pull the latest version (0.9.5) but I'm still getting the version
> number listed as 0.9.4. Although some of the newer features (e.g. the calling sequence
> of gyre_ad namelist instead of gyre_ad < namelist) are in the latest version I'm
> getting.
>

Yep, my bad -- I forgot to bump the version number.

> 2) I've also been getting the following error when compiling the non-adiabatic code:
>
> FC gyre_nad.f90
> gyre_nad.f90:131.30:
>
> call init_scan(unit, bc, omega)
> 1
> Error: Type mismatch in argument 'op' at (1); passed REAL(8) to TYPE(oscpar_t)
> gyre_nad.f90:148.38:
>
> call write_data(unit, nad_ef, bc)
> 1
> Error: More actual than formal arguments in procedure call at (1)
> make: *** [gyre_nad.o] Error 1
>

This has been fixed in 0.9.6 (just released!)

> 3) The code accepts frequencies <= 0 in the scan namelist. The code crashes on freq_min
> = 0.
>
> 4) The code also accepts l < 0 in the osc namelist.
>

I'll fix these with some checks at some point. Less of a priority, since these are 'user errors'.

Thanks for the report!

cheers,

Rich