[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new snapshot?
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: new snapshot? |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:22:15 -0500 |
On 25-Feb-2010, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
| The ARPACK failures are mysterious. Technically what has changed are
| the 1D constructors and 1D resize. I scanned through eigs-base.cc and
| eigs.cc but couldn't spot any problems. I'll try to compile a 64-bit
| ARPACK and also give it a shot, but right now it's more important for
| me to get the legends in FLTK backend.
Don't worry about the ARPACK problems. I think I found the reason for
the failure. Some of the ARPACK functions have Fortran LOGICAL values
in their argument lists and the prototypes in eigs-base.cc were using
int for them which isn't correct when using -fdefault-integer-8. If
we expect all Fortran compilers to use 8 bytes for LOGICAL values when
compiling INTEGER values as 8 bytes, then we can just use
octave_idx_type in the prototypes. Otherwise I guess we should use
different typedefs for Fortran INTEGER and LOGICAL arguments in the
prototypes.
Comments or suggestions?
Thanks,
jwe
- new snapshot?, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/02/18
- Re: new snapshot?, Ben Abbott, 2010/02/18
- new snapshot?, John W. Eaton, 2010/02/18
- Re: new snapshot?, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/02/18
- Re: new snapshot?, John W. Eaton, 2010/02/18
- Re: new snapshot?, David Bateman, 2010/02/18
- Re: new snapshot?, John W. Eaton, 2010/02/24
- Re: new snapshot?, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/02/25
- Re: new snapshot?,
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: new snapshot?, John W. Eaton, 2010/02/25
- Re: new snapshot?, Søren Hauberg, 2010/02/25
- Re: new snapshot?, Michael D. Godfrey, 2010/02/26
- Re: new snapshot?, John W. Eaton, 2010/02/26
- Re: new snapshot?, Michael D. Godfrey, 2010/02/26
- Re: new snapshot?, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/02/26
- Re: new snapshot?, Michael D. Godfrey, 2010/02/26
- Re: new snapshot?, John W. Eaton, 2010/02/26
- Re: new snapshot?, Michael D. Godfrey, 2010/02/26
- Re: new snapshot?, Michael D. Godfrey, 2010/02/26