From: Roy S. <roy...@ic...> - 2009-11-20 00:06:46
|
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Vijay S. Mahadevan wrote: > yes, that fixed the problem in ex4. I'll compile my code and test it > later today and will let you know if there are any other problems. There are definitely other problems. There appears to be an I/O regression that's unrelated to the libHilbert change. I'm still trying to track that down, but it's nasty - whereas the libHilbert bug was only affecting a couple codes, this I/O regression even triggers on ex10... --- Roy > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Roy Stogner <roy...@ic...> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Vijay S. Mahadevan wrote: >> >>> Ah I see. I do not use AMR extensively these days and so most of my >>> test problems have been working smoothly without encountering the >>> error you mentioned. I assumed this was a very specific bug that >>> occurred only after several refinements. If this is the case, can I >>> fall back to enabling Hilbert library ? Or would it be safer to wait >>> for your implementation to be checked in before I start running in >>> parallel ? >> >> My implementation's checked in now. Whether it's safer to trust code >> that hasn't been thoroughly tested or code that has been found to fail >> in a few hard-to-find cases is a matter of opinion. I'd appreciate it >> if you'd run with the new implementation, though, so that we start >> getting that more thoroughly tested ASAP. That seems like the fastest >> way to get back to "safe". The libHilbert issue appeared to be a >> problem in their code, which either means that we have to fix their >> code or that we've misunderstood the problem; either way it may take >> us a while to make it safe to turn that back on. >> --- >> Roy >> > |