On 03/16/2013 03:33 AM, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
Rik (maybe),
I ran "make test" and had a failure for
processing
/usr/local/src/octave/octave-dialog/build2/libinterp/dldfcn/fftw.cc-tst
***** testif HAVE_FFTW
def_method = fftw ("planner");
unwind_protect
method = "estimate";
fftw ("planner", method);
assert (fftw ("planner"), method);
method = "measure";
fftw ("planner", method);
assert (fftw ("planner"), method);
method = "patient";
fftw ("planner", method);
assert (fftw ("planner"), method);
method = "exhaustive";
fftw ("planner", method);
assert (fftw ("planner"), method);
method = "hybrid";
fftw ("planner", method);
assert (fftw ("planner"), method);
unwind_protect_cleanup
fftw ("planner", def_method);
end_unwind_protect
!!!!! test failed
value on right hand side of assignment is undefined
My conclusion is that this test is not being properly excluded. I run
lines individually and immediately get:
octave:1> def_method = fftw ("planner");
warning: fftw: this copy of Octave was not configured to use the FFTW3
planner
error: value on right hand side of assignment is undefined
so perhaps somewhere in the "configure" process the HAVE_FFTW should be
defined as null or logical 0???
Doing a search for "HAVE_FFTW" in addition to some other places I find:
config.log:AMCOND_HAVE_FFTW_FALSE=''
config.log:AMCOND_HAVE_FFTW_TRUE='#'
config.status:S["AMCOND_HAVE_FFTW_FALSE"]=""
config.status:S["AMCOND_HAVE_FFTW_TRUE"]="#"
Is something being overlooked there?
What does
octave_config_info ("features")
show? This is a list of all the HAVE_X macros, with the common "HAVE_"
part omitted. On my system, it has FFTW3, but not FFTW, so it looks like
the testif check is wrong.