Bug Hunting in Old F77 Code

Old Fortran codes did not always conform to the Fortran standard in force at their creation, and such deviations did not bother the users of the codes as long as the codes ran correctly on the machines in use at the time. During the last few days, I tangled with one such bug, and I felt that it would be useful to record some highlights of the experience.

The code in question is Hairer’s stiff ODE solver RADAU5. Ernst Hairer is a distinguished mathematician, and is the author of a superb 2-volume treatise on differential equations, the second volume of which is devoted to stiff ODEs. Ernst Hairer’s son, Martin Hairer, won the 2014 Fields Medal.

The three source files needed are dr1_radau5.f, radau5.f and dc_lapack.f, which you can download from Hairer’s site.

Compiling the three files with Lapack and BLAS libraries and running the resulting program produces the following output (a few digits may differ, depending on which compiler you use, etc.)

 X = 0.00    Y =  0.2000000000E+01 -0.6600000000E+00    NSTEP =   0
 X = 0.20    Y =  0.1858198964E+01 -0.7574791034E+00    NSTEP =  10
 X = 0.40    Y =  0.1693205231E+01 -0.9069021617E+00    NSTEP =  11
 X = 0.60    Y =  0.1484565763E+01 -0.1233096965E+01    NSTEP =  13
 X = 0.80    Y =  0.1083912895E+01 -0.6196077501E+01    NSTEP =  22
 X = 1.00    Y = -0.1863645642E+01  0.7535323767E+00    NSTEP = 123
 X = 1.20    Y = -0.1699724325E+01  0.8997692747E+00    NSTEP = 124
 X = 1.40    Y = -0.1493375073E+01  0.1213880891E+01    NSTEP = 126
 X = 1.60    Y = -0.1120780441E+01  0.4374794949E+01    NSTEP = 133
 X = 1.80    Y =  0.1869050586E+01 -0.7495753072E+00    NSTEP = 237
 X = 2.00    Y =  0.1706161101E+01 -0.8928074777E+00    NSTEP = 238
 X = 2.00    Y =  0.1706161101E+01 -0.8928074777E+00
 fcn= 2218 jac= 161 step= 275 accpt= 238 rejct=  8 dec= 248 sol=  660

Everything seems in order. The test problem (van der Pol equation) involves only two variables, and the program runs in less than a second.

However, I wish to use this ODE solver on a stiff ODE with 400 variables (Medakzo). Therefore, I wanted to identify the part of the code where most of the run time is spent, and improve the code by using modern Fortran or by calling fast MKL routines as replacements for expensive DO loops.

Profiling the code (still with the van der Pol problem) showed that the first and second most used routines were FVPOL, which implements the specific ODE right hand side functions, and SLVRAD, which forms and solves a dense set of linear equations using Lapack. There is not much to do to speed up FVPOL, and the number of times it gets called is controlled by the ODE solver algorithm. That took me into the source for SLVRAD, which is where my troubles began.

The section of code that forms the arguments to pass to the Lapack linear solver pair DGETRF/DGETRS is the following:

      DO I=1,N
      END DO
      DO I=N,1,-1
      END DO

All the arrays that you see here are dummy arguments. I felt that I could combine the two loops and eliminate the temporary variables, using this equivalent code:

      do i = n, 1, -1
         z1(i) = z1(i) - f1(i) * fac1
         z2(2*i)   = z3(i) - f3(i) * alphn - f2(i) * betan
         z2(2*i-1) = z2(i) - f2(i) * alphn + f3(i) * betan
      end do

The program output changed to

 X = 0.00    Y =  0.2000000000E+01 -0.6600000000E+00    NSTEP =   0
 X = 0.20    Y =  0.1899165797E+01 -0.7285341796E+00    NSTEP =1009
 X = 0.40    Y =  0.1787641272E+01 -0.8141696660E+00    NSTEP =2635
 X = 0.60    Y =  0.1660762839E+01 -0.9446167743E+00    NSTEP =5042
 X = 0.80    Y =  0.1556660519E+01 -0.1093780715E+01    NSTEP =****
 EXIT OF RADAU5 AT X=        0.9004E+00
 X = 0.90    Y =  0.1556659825E+01 -0.1093786486E+01
 fcn=***** jac=**** step=**** accpt=**** rejct=*** dec=**** sol=*****

What happened? Oh, the arrays Z2 and Z3 are of formal size N, but the code treats Z2 as if it were of size 2*N. Yet, the original code ran fine on a number of test problems, whereas my “improved” version fails!

Unable to see why the seemingly correct replacement code caused the program to fail, I resorted to my favorite debugging tool: the PRINT statement. I added this before my replacement fused loop:

      write(*,'(A,2ES12.4)')'Before loop, Z3 = ',z3(1:n)

and this after the same loop:

      write(*,'(A,2ES12.4)')'After  loop, Z3 = ',z3(1:n)

The output after making these changes became:

 X = 0.00    Y =  0.2000000000E+01 -0.6600000000E+00    NSTEP =   0
Before loop, Z3 =  -9.7219E-01 -2.9460E+04
After  loop, Z3 =   8.0596E+04 -2.9460E+04

How can this be? Z3 appears only to the right of the = sign in the replacement loop. How did it get changed? Was it because of array bounds being crossed, or aliasing, or both?

[To be Continued; please post your comments and suggestion if the topic interests you. Thanks in advance!]


SciPy has their own Python implementation of the Radau IIA method located here: scipy/radau.py at v1.8.0 · scipy/scipy · GitHub. Perhaps you can use it to cross-check the algorithm.

What strikes me as odd is that in Python, the first column uses slightly different coefficients:

T = np.array([
    [0.09443876248897524, -0.14125529502095421, 0.03002919410514742],
    [0.25021312296533332, 0.20412935229379994, -0.38294211275726192],
    [1, 1, 0]])

and in Fortran (radau5.f):


while in Julia OrdinaryDiffEq.jl’s - file src/tableaus/firk_tableaus.jl - the coefficients match Hairer’s Fortran code:

function RadauIIA5Tableau(T,T2)
  T11  = convert(T, 9.1232394870892942792e-02)
  T12  = convert(T, -0.14125529502095420843e0)
  T13  = convert(T, -3.0029194105147424492e-02)
  T21  = convert(T, 0.24171793270710701896e0)
  T22  = convert(T, 0.20412935229379993199e0)
  T23  = convert(T, 0.38294211275726193779e0)
  T31  = convert(T, 0.96604818261509293619e0)

I haven’t looked at Hairer’s textbook to see what it says. The Julia implementation as a second cross-check can be found here: OrdinaryDiffEq.jl/firk_perform_step.jl at master · SciML/OrdinaryDiffEq.jl · GitHub

Perhaps the Fortran version is not the only one affected by bugs :crazy_face:

PS: If of any use for cross-checking, a driver for the van der Pol equation solved by the SIRK3 method is located here: GitHub - ivan-pi/stiff3: Adaptive solver for stiff systems of ODEs using semi-implicit Runge-Kutta method of third order. The same Lapack routines are required.


I would check to see if Z2 is a real array aliased with a complex array either through an EQUIVALENCE statement or through argument passing. The Fortran storage equivalence rules allow a 2N real array to overlay an N complex array.


A search for “equivalence” gives no hits in radau5.f or dc_lapack.f.

The “Z” arrays are sections of the array work declared in radau5.f:

C vvv L373 vvv

The entry points don’t appear to alias:

C vvv L593 vvv

The call to the core integrator is:

C vvv L629 vvv
C -------- CALL TO CORE INTEGRATOR ------------
     &   WORK(IEZ3), ...

Inside of RADCOR there doesn’t appear to be any aliasing either:

C vvv L667 vvv
     &   Y0,SCAL,F1,F2,F3,FJAC,E1,E2R,E2I,FMAS,IP1,IP2,IPHES,
C ----------------------------------------------------------
C ---------------------------------------------------------- 
C ---------------------------------------------------------- 
      DIMENSION Y(N),Z1(N),Z2(N),Z3(N)

So it looks like crossing array bounds with the 2*i and 2*i-1 indexes is the true culprit.

1 Like

[Bug Hunting, Continued]

Thanks to @ivanprivec and @wclodius for their perceptive analyses of the problem.

The problem is caused by the fact that Z2(N+1:2*N) occupies the same memory as Z3(1:N), but this can become known only by following up the call chain to the place where Z2 and Z3 are allocated (by computing indices to portions of a large combined work array). Thus, setting values into Z2(N+1:2*N) changes Z3. Not only is the upper array bound of Z2 crossed, but values in Z3 are being changed through the name Z2, which the rules of Fortran forbid. Now we can appreciate why the rule is beneficial.

What the old code did is to utilize the array CONT as scratch space. Its use, along with the two DO loops in the old code, caused the old values of Z3 to be used to set all the N elements of CONT in the first loop. After that first loop was completed, the old Z3 values were no longer needed, so the clobbering of Z3 by Z2(N+1:2*N) in the second loop was harmless. After the call to DGETRS in the old code, new values were put into the Z3 array, and everything worked correctly.

My modification (combining the two DO loops into one) failed because, thinking that Z2 and Z3 were different variables, and thinking that because the old code worked the array overrun was not harmful, I rearranged the order of calculation. My rearrangement would have been correct only if Z2 and Z3 had been distinct, i.e., did not overlap.

The Fortran rules against aliasing give us the freedom to think of Z2 and Z3 as distinct variables. If those rules are violated, strange things can happen, and seemingly harmless changes such as my modification can cause the program to malfunction in mysterious ways!

So, what is the fix? Change the allocation of Z2 to the required size, 2N, by changing the statement


in radau5.f to


and increase the size of work array WORK by N, by changing

4 * nd * nd + 12 * nd + 20


4 * nd * nd + 13 * nd + 20

I suppose the addition of an extra nd variables is negligible in comparison with the nd**2 part.

I was wondering this morning if you couldn’t just replace the parts which reference values Z2(N+1:2*N) with Z3 directly?

After taking a better look, I noticed @wclodius was right about aliasing through argument passing. The reason the array bounds of Z2 are crossed is because it is used as a complex array, just after the loops in question:

C vvv L898 - dc_lapack.f vvv
      DO I=1,N
      END DO
      DO I=N,1,-1
      END DO
      CALL DGETRS ('No transpose',N,1,E1,LDE1,IP1,Z1,N,IER)
      CALL ZGETRS ('No transpose',N,1,E2R,LDE1,IP2,Z2,N,IER)
      DO I=1,N
      END DO
      DO I=1,N
      END DO

For the right-hand side of the complex system of equations, Z2 in this case, zgetrs expects an argument of type

		complex*16, dimension( ldb, * ) 	B

The indexes 2*i-1 and 2*i are accessing the real and complex parts of the array. (I’m assuming a complex array is laid out as r1, c1, r2, c2, …) The loops before and after the LAPACK calls are just packing and unpacking the complex right-hand side from an interleaved (r1,c1,r2,c2,…rn,cn) to a contiguous format (r1,r2,…,rn, c1, c2, …, cn).

On a different note, for your system of 400 variables, is the Jacobian sparse or banded? The work array section of size 4*400*400 seems like an awful lot of memory.

Both Julia and SciPy allow to pass sparse matrices in CSC format if I’m not mistaken.


The old code has other features that may cause problems. The call to SLVRAD in RADAU5.f contains two double precision 2-D real arrays as actual arguments: E2R, E2I. The corresponding dummy arguments in SLVRAD are a complex*16 array E2R, and a real*8 dummy scalar! For this to work, the array E2I must follow E4R immediately in memory, and you have to give up on interface checking.

The Radau5 code can be used with Lapack routines to do the linear algebra, in which case there are some complex variables, or with a “house” linear algebra package (Decsol), which uses only real variables. Very clever, and perhaps a good solution in the early 1970s, when Lapack and BLAS had not yet been born, but troublesome these days.

The Radau code does provide for dense or banded mass and jacobian matrices. For the Medakzo problem, which arises from the spatial discretization of the 1-D diffusion equation with two species, the jacobian has upper and lower bandwidth of 2. I had intended to use the dense solver with a smaller value of N such as 40 before turning to the banded form for larger N.

Unfortunately, no. If you look at the code, you will notice that in SLVRAD the array argument Z3 has three roles:

  • input array, used in forming one of the arguments to ZGETRS,

  • output array, returned to the caller near the end

  • scratch space

One has to be clear about which of these roles is being played when attempting to improve or speed-up the code. The old code did this even while Z3 was being clobbered by Z2! The amount of memory they had on the old mainframes was so little (128 kwords on the CDC 6600; up to 8 MB on the IBM 360) that such practices were almost necessary to get real work done.

1 Like

Would changing “IEZ3=IEZ2+N” to “IEZ3=IEZ2+N*2” change the results in the original code where two DO loops are used ?
I would expect not, as all this should do would be to waste space in the WORK array, unless the aliasing of Z2:Z3 in the original code is important.

The original second DO loop adresses Z2 outside the allocated bounds, overwriting Z3 ( possibly after it has been used) should have been documented.
DO I=N,1,-1

Is this use of Z2(N+1:n*2) to generate the equivalent complex value pairs of Z2 ?, which is more “complex” memory mapping than I have used before in old FORTRAN.

The assumption in the first post : " I felt that I could combine the two loops and eliminate the temporary variables, using this equivalent code:" appears to be invalid, although using “IEZ3=IEZ2+N*2” might fix this ?

I think that the most serious error in the old code was the requirement that the actual arguments for Z2 and Z3 should have a certain memory layout (Z3 to follow Z2), and not making that requirement known in comments.

However, the rearranged code segment no longer uses CONT for scratch space, so it may be possible to remove CONT as an argument to SLVRAD, thus there would be no net change in memory needed. One would have to double check that CONT is not required elsewhere, or when different values of IOPT are passed.

A significant usage of “WORK” was to provide temporary arrays of arbitrary size.
Where their usage is local to a routine, these can now (F90+) be replaced by automatic or ALLOCATE arrays, depending on their size relative to the stack size.
This was a significant improvement in F90+, although many OS failed to provide a larger stack to help with this change.
Using automatic or ALLOCATE arrays in a routine can simplify the understanding and management of WORK, unless there are undocumented uses of these arrays beyond the “routine”.

1 Like

Yes, and using local, allocated and automatic arrays will solve another bad property of old code: too many subprogram arguments, many of which are simply scratch space. If such a passed-around work array is of the wrong size or needs to be changed in size because of a change to an algorithm, changes have to be made in many places. Too many opportunities to err.

Some old codes used the Reverse Call Interface. MKL’s TRNLSP still uses this interface. An RCI library routine has to go through the chore of mincing up work space into dozens of arguments to pass down to other subprograms. I have seen cases where such mincing is needed only once, but is repeated thousands of times needlessly.