FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-06-2008, 08:17 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default Removing hdf5 from ppc64

The hdf5 1.8.0 does not build on ppc64 (or it builds, but it fails its
tests). I've put in an ExcludeArch: ppc64 for now and filed a bug:


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445423

I really don't have any more time to work on this at the moment. If you
do and you care about this, all help is appreciated.


Packages (directly) affected:

gdal
LabPlot
octave
paraview
R-hdf5

Downstream:

gdal -> grass, mapserver, qgis
octave -> octave-forge, plplot
plplot -> gdl, perl-PDL

--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-07-2008, 07:30 AM
"Thibault North"
 
Default Removing hdf5 from ppc64

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion@cora.nwra.com> wrote:
> The hdf5 1.8.0 does not build on ppc64 (or it builds, but it fails its
> tests). I've put in an ExcludeArch: ppc64 for now and filed a bug:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445423
>
> I really don't have any more time to work on this at the moment. If you do
> and you care about this, all help is appreciated.
>
> Packages (directly) affected:
>
> gdal
> LabPlot
> octave
> paraview
> R-hdf5
>
> Downstream:
>
> gdal -> grass, mapserver, qgis
> octave -> octave-forge, plplot
> plplot -> gdl, perl-PDL
>

LabPlot already excludes ppc64, so there is no regression for it after
hdf5 1.8.0.


> --
> Orion Poplawski
> Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
> NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
> 3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
> Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-07-2008, 09:07 AM
David Woodhouse
 
Default Removing hdf5 from ppc64

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:30 +0200, Thibault North wrote:
> LabPlot already excludes ppc64, so there is no regression for it after
> hdf5 1.8.0.

What's the bug number? I don't see it on the FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
tracker.

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-07-2008, 10:08 AM
David Woodhouse
 
Default Removing hdf5 from ppc64

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 14:17 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> The hdf5 1.8.0 does not build on ppc64 (or it builds, but it fails its
> tests). I've put in an ExcludeArch: ppc64 for now and filed a bug:

All the test failures are precision/rounding errors with 'long double'.
My first guess would be that it's assuming that 'long double' is 64-bit.
That's not a valid assumption, in the general case.

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-07-2008, 10:51 AM
David Woodhouse
 
Default Removing hdf5 from ppc64

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 11:08 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 14:17 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > The hdf5 1.8.0 does not build on ppc64 (or it builds, but it fails its
> > tests). I've put in an ExcludeArch: ppc64 for now and filed a bug:
>
> All the test failures are precision/rounding errors with 'long double'.
> My first guess would be that it's assuming that 'long double' is 64-bit.
> That's not a valid assumption, in the general case.

Hm, seems like it's _expecting_ rounding errors. But only handles them
by ignoring the last few bytes of the mantissa. But in these cases, the
mantissa and the exponent are both quite different, although the total
error is small:

Testing soft long -> long double conversions *FAILED*
elmt 107:
src = 00 3f ff ff ff ff ff ff 18014398509481983
dst = 43 4f ff ff ff ff ff ff 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 18014398509481982.000000
ans = 43 50 00 00 00 00 00 00 bf f0 00 00 00 00 00 00 18014398509481983.000000

Here, I think that 'dst' is the result of the routine under test, while
'ans' is the result of letting the hardware/compiler do the conversion
with a simple cast.

I'm not sure if this is a real error which it intended to catch, or
whether it's considered acceptable lack of precision.

As ever, I can give accounts on suitable machines to more knowledgeable
people who want to investigate further. Just let me have a SSH public
key.

--
dwmw2

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:13 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org