[Numpy-discussion] ANN: NumPy 1.6.2 release candidate 1
ralf.gommers at googlemail.com
Mon May 14 15:47:25 EDT 2012
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Anton Letnes <
paul.anton.letnes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Ralf Gommers
> <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Charles R Harris
> > <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Paul Anton Letnes
> >> <paul.anton.letnes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I'm getting a couple of errors when testing. System:
> >>> Arch Linux (updated today)
> >>> Python 3.2.3
> >>> gcc 4.7.0
> >>> (Anything else?)
> >>> I think that this error:
> >>> AssertionError: selectedrealkind(19): expected -1 but got 16
> >>> is due to the fact that newer versions of gfortran actually supports
> >>> precision this high (quad precision).
> >> Yes, but it should be fixed. I can't duplicate this here with a fresh
> >> checkout of the branch.
> > This failure makes no sense to me.
> > Error comes from this code:
> > 'selectedrealkind(%s): expected %r but got %r' % (i,
> > selected_real_kind(i), selectedrealkind(i)))
> > So "selected_real_kind(19)" returns -1.
> > selected_real_kind is the function
> > numpy.f2py.crackfortran._selected_real_kind_func, which is defined as:
> > def _selected_real_kind_func(p, r=0, radix=0):
> > #XXX: This should be processor dependent
> > # This is only good for 0 <= p <= 20
> > if p < 7: return 4
> > if p < 16: return 8
> > if platform.machine().lower().startswith('power'):
> > if p <= 20:
> > return 16
> > else:
> > if p < 19:
> > return 10
> > elif p <= 20:
> > return 16
> > return -1
> > For p=19 this function should always return 16. So the result from
> > foo.f90 is fine, but the test is broken in a very strange way.
> > Paul, is the failure reproducible on your machine? If so, can you try to
> > debug it?
> > Ralf
> Hi Ralf.
> The Arch numpy (1.6.1) for python 2.7, installed via pacman (the
> package manager) has this problem.
> After installation of numpy 1.6.2rc1 in a virtualenv, the test passes.
> Maybe the bug was fixed in the RC, and I screwed up which numpy
> version I tested? I'm sorry that I can't find out - I just built a new
> machine, and the old one is lying around the livingroom in pieces. Was
> that particular bit of code changed between 1.6.1 and 1.6.2rc1?
It was actually, in https://github.com/numpy/numpy/commit/e7f2210e1.
So you tested 1.6.1 by accident before, and it's working now? Problem
solved in that case.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion