Hi Natalie you may safely revert to the old syntax. Apparently there are still some compilers that do not handle properly the advance="no" option in PRINT statements
P. On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Holzwarth, Natalie <nata...@wfu.edu> wrote: > In testing the new 5.2.1 version of the program, I noticed that one change > from 5.1 was in the partial density of states output from partialdos.f90 > for the title line. > > For example, in version 5.1, the title line for the pdos output used > WRITE(4,'(" pdos(E) ",$)') > > while in version 5.2.1 the same pdos output is changed to > WRITE(4,'(" pdos(E) "), advance="NO"') > > For our intel compiler, the 5.1 version keeps the title line on a single > line, while the 5.2.1 version puts each piece of the title line on a > different line. I guess it is not processing the advance="NO" > statement. Since this title line is making the postprocessing difficult, > I am tempted to put those write statements back to the 5.1 version, or > perhaps there is a better solution. Thanks in advance for your advice on > this. Natalie > > N. A. W. Holzwarth email: > nata...@wfu.edu > Department of Physics web: > http://www.wfu.edu/~natalie > Wake Forest University phone: > 1-336-758-5510 > Winston-Salem, NC 27109 USA office: Rm. 300 Olin > Physical Lab > > _______________________________________________ > Pw_forum mailing list > Pw_forum@pwscf.org > http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum > -- Paolo Giannozzi, Dept. Chemistry&Physics&Environment, Univ. Udine, via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy Phone +39-0432-558216, fax +39-0432-558222
_______________________________________________ Pw_forum mailing list Pw_forum@pwscf.org http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum