This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: test release 1.11.90
- From: "Brian Gladman" <brg at gladman dot plus dot com>
- To: "Brian Gough" <bjg at gnu dot org>,<gsl-discuss at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:17:05 -0000
- Subject: Re: test release 1.11.90
- References: <m3hc5dhs7x.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Gough" <bjg@gnu.org>
To: <gsl-discuss@sourceware.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:57 PM
Subject: test release 1.11.90
There is a test release for gsl-1.12 at
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/gsl/gsl-1.11.90.tar.gz
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/gsl/gsl-1.11.90.tar.gz.sig
Please try it out and report any problems here.
The results with Microsoft Visual Studi 2008 Professional running on Vista
Ultimate x64 with both the Microsoft and Intel compilers (v11.0) are as
follows:
1. linalg\test.c is not C89 compliant as it contains declarations in the
function body of vector_alloc():
gsl_vector *
vector_alloc (size_t n)
{
size_t p[5] = {3, 5, 7, 11, 13};
static size_t k = 0;
size_t stride = p[k];
k = (k + 1) % 5;
gsl_block * b = gsl_block_alloc (n * stride);
<<<<<<<<<<<
gsl_vector * v = gsl_vector_alloc_from_block (b, 0, n, stride);
<<<<<<<<<<<
v->owner = 1;
return v;
}
2. The Microsoft Compiler -- with one exception, all tests pass for both
static and DLL libraries for both 32 and 64 bit compilation. The exception
is that the file fft.c fails to compile correctly in both 32 and 64 bit mode
when optimisation is turned on. This bug has been reported to Microsoft.
3 The Intel Comipler (v11) -- with one exception, all tests pass for both
static and DLL libraries for both 32 and 64 bit compilation. The exception
is that testode reports errors in the 64-bit build:
FAIL: bsimp linear step(0) (0.57999999999999996 observed vs
0.78000000000000003 expected) [49]
FAIL: bsimp exponential step(0) (14.879731724872837 observed vs
14.881219772446466 expected) [50]
FAIL: bsimp cosine-sine step(0) (0.36235775447667362 observed vs
0.36142553436718422 expected) [51]
FAIL: bsimp cosine-sine step(1) (0.93203908596722629 observed vs
0.93240097764180585 expected) [52]
FAIL: bsimp classic_stiff step(1) (0 observed vs -9.9895000171712489e-005
expected) [54]
FAIL: bsimp evolve_apply reached maxiter [155]
FAIL: bsimp linear[0,4] evolve(0) (1 observed vs 9 expected) [156]
FAIL: bsimp evolve_apply reached maxiter [157]
FAIL: bsimp exp[0,2] evolve(0) (1 observed vs 7.3890560989306504 expected)
[158]
FAIL: bsimp sine[0,2] evolve(0) (-1.#IND observed vs -0.41614683654714241
expected) [159]
FAIL: bsimp sine[0,2] evolve(1) (-1.#IND observed vs 0.90929742682568171
expected) [160]
FAIL: bsimp sine[0,2] w/errors evolve(0) (-1.#IND observed
vs -0.41614683654714241 expected) [161]
FAIL: bsimp sine[0,2] w/errors evolve(1) (-1.#IND observed vs
0.90929742682568171 expected) [162]
FAIL: bsimp evolve_apply reached maxiter [163]
FAIL: bsimp stiff[0,1] evolve(0) (1 observed vs 0.73575888234288467
expected) [164]
FAIL: bsimp stiff[0,1] evolve(1) (0 observed vs -0.36787944117144233
expected) [165]
FAIL: bsimp evolve_apply reached maxiter [166]
FAIL: bsimp stiff[0,5] evolve(0) (1 observed vs 0.013475893998170934
expected) [167]
It also hangs before completing. I have not yet had the time to look into
this failure in any detail.
This report requires minor changes to some GSL files to adjust to
differences on Windows.
best regards and my thanks to all GSL contributors.
Brian Gladman