RE: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]

[Liguo S. <lig...@va...>]

Hi, Dirk,

./configure;make;make check works smoothly here. So, it might be one of =
the
optimization flags that I used.

FYI, I am using gcc version 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7). =
Also,
just in case that it matters, I am using automake-1.7.6-1 and
autoconf-2.57-3.

I will let you know if I figure out anything new.


Liguo



-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Eddelbuettel [mailto:ed...@de...]=20
Sent: 27 August 2003 17:09
To: Liguo Song
Cc: qua...@li...
Subject: Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]


On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:14:08PM -0500, Liguo Song wrote:
> Hi, Dirk,
>=20
> I was just pulling my hair off for another problem with=20
> quantlib-test-suite. My RPM packages build fine, but when running=20
> quantlib-test-suite, it runs through all the tests, but ends up with =
the=20
> following error message:
>=20
>     !!!FAILURES!!!
>     Test Results:
>     Run:  64   Failures: 0   Errors: 1
>=20
>=20
>     1) test: Testing Monte Carlo European engines against analytic =
results

>     (E)
>      "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"

Interesting. I don't get that -- the test suite runs fine once the =
package
is installed. It just doesn't from 'make check'. I get

[...]
Testing old-style Monte Carlo single-factor pricers...
Testing old-style Monte Carlo multi-factor pricers...

OK (64 tests)


Dirk

>=20
> Right now, the quantlib-test-suite is a little out of my reach. Any =
input?
>=20
> BTW, if it helps, I am building the final tar balls that Luigi =
mentioned=20
> previously.
>=20
> Liguo
>=20
>=20
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on =
the
> >previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first=20
> >noticed
> >it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues,
re-ran=20
> >it.
> >
> >It dies here:
> >
> >/usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> >make[3]: Entering directory
home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
> >                   =20
> >                    Testing can never demonstrate the absence
> >                   of errors in software, only their presence.
> >                                           -- W.E. Dijkstra
> >					  =20
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
> >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >Testing joint calendars...
> >Testing cap/floor dependency on
> >strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error:
lt-quantlib-test-suite:
> >undefined symbol:
>
>_ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS=
_4D
ateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5Xi=
bor
EEEiS5_S8_
> >FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
> =
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
> >1 of 1 tests failed
> >Please report to qua...@li...
> =
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
> >
> >I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 =
of
> >these passed with flying colours yesterday.
> >
> >Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this =
works
> >for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.
> >
> >Dirk
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Quantlib-dev mailing list
> Qua...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-dev
>=20

--=20
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have =
others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx