[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.9.12 (2.9.13) chol broken with --enable-64?
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: 2.9.12 (2.9.13) chol broken with --enable-64? |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:08:34 -0400 |
On 11-Aug-2007, Fredrik Lingvall wrote:
| I have compiled LAPACK (3.0.1) with -m64 and -march=nocona and I use
What compiler? What do those options mean?
| GOTO BLAS with
| BINARY64 = 1 in the Makefile.rule file.
I don't know what that does.
Octave expects to use the Fortran interface to lapack and blas
functions, so do these options make the INTEGER arguments to those
functions signed 8 byte values?
| To test I created an oct file that calls the LAPACK routines,
|
| dpotrf_(upper_or_lower, &N, Y, &lda, &info); (cholesky factorization)
|
| and
|
| dpotri_(upper_or_lower, &N, Y, &lda, &info); (positive triangualar
| inverse)
|
| which should do the same thing as cholinv (I guess). The result is
|
| octave:1> A=rand(100,100);
| octave:2> A=A'*A;
| octave:3> C = potri(A);
| octave:4> C = potri(A);
| octave:5> C = potri(A);
What is potri?
| octave:6> cholinv(A);
| octave:7> cholinv(A);
| error: cholinv: matrix not positive definite
|
| I test the info parameter after both calls above and the info parameter
| is always = 0 (no error).
I don't think anyone can help you with this problem if you don't show
the code you are using.
jwe