On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Mark Wiebe <mwwi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Wieland Brendel >> <wielandbren...@gmx.net>wrote: >> >>> > The equality being that the expression should be ~0? >>> >>> Exactly. >>> >>> > I see the problem when the last index is in the range 235 - 390. >>> >>> Good to see I am not the only one - I was getting crazy. Same range for me >>> by the way.**> Out of curiosity, which machine/OS are you using? I'm on 64 >>> bit fedora 14, >>> > AMD 940. >>> >>> I am using 64 bit Windows 7 / Intel i5 M 540 / Python(x,y) distribution / >>> Numpy 1.6 (latest, no RC) >>> >>> Any idea where that might come from? Looks like a very odd problem... >>> >>> Wieland >>> >>> PS: Its my first time on a mailing list - hope this mail actually replies >>> to the thread. If not: How do I reply? >>> >>> >>> >> You're doing fine. You have found a bug, not unexpected with einsum not >> having been tested as much as the rest of the release since it is new and >> hasn't been used before. Please open a ticket. >> >> Chuck >> > > I've committed a fix to this, and a crash that I encountered when > experimenting with it, to both master and the 1.6.1 branch. It turned out to > be an incorrectly handled interaction in the iterator when the inner loop > for the reduction case doesn't fit all the way in the buffer. > > Fast work. Looks like we will need to put out a 1.6.1 in a month or so. There is also a new ticket for f2py assumed size arrays. Hopefully (is that the right word?), more bugs will turn up in that time frame. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion