WRF
WRF copied to clipboard
Using the "vortex following" option, v4.3.1 compilation breaks after a single change in Registry files
Describe the bug
After the fix of the v4.3.1 'vortex following' compilation (#1555), adding a single misc
variable to Registry/Registry.EM_COMMON
or Registry/registry.sbm
(for example) breaks the compilation.
To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior:
- Use WRF version v4.3.1 with Intel 'vortex following' compile option (15/3)
- Insert a single additional
misc
variable in one of the above Registry files - Output is: compilation breaks in the same manner
@JS-WRF-SBM Can we assume that you started with clean code without compilation being done before?
@JS-WRF-SBM Can we assume that you started with clean code without compilation being done before?
Hi @weiwangncar,
I've compiled v4.3.1 'out-of-the-box' without any change -- the compilation was successful.
Then I inserted a single new misc
field in one of the Registry files, followed by ./clean -a
, ./configure
and choosing option 15/3
. Compilation breaks.
This seems to be also the case for v.4.3 and all v4.2.x versions; v4.1.x seems to be OK.
@JS-WRF-SBM What is the version of the Intel compiler you're using? If you have a module environment, can you show us what else you are using too?
@weiwangncar
This bug is verified on different machines with different environment:
- Laptop with Intel OneAPI 2021
- HPC with Intel 2019u3/u5
- The echo $PATH description is attached env_WRF.txt
Thanks, Jacob
@weiwangncar @kkeene44
As mentioned above and in the WRF support forum, the WRF v4.1.5 is the version which seems to compiles correctly with 'vortex following' (15/3) + enable to basically change various registry files. Upon initialization of a 3-domain (2-nests) Tropical Cyclone run with WPS , the first domain gets the 9-km reosolution initialization correctly. The second domain (1st nest) is read-in with 200 [m] resolution, but in practice it's 3000 [m]. The 'vortex following' switch seems to be really hard to progress with.
How do you suggest to proceed?
Thanks, Jacob