On 29.01.2015 23:32, graph-t...@v6y.net wrote:
> Quoting Tiago de Paula Peixoto (2015-01-29 15:54:14)
>> The modifications are now in the git version.
>
> Great, thanks.
>
> Did you fix a bug with "git clone" on the skewed.de server?
>
> "git clone https://git.skewed.de/count0/graph-tool.git";
>
>
Quoting Tiago de Paula Peixoto (2015-01-29 15:54:14)
> The modifications are now in the git version.
Great, thanks.
Did you fix a bug with "git clone" on the skewed.de server?
"git clone https://git.skewed.de/count0/graph-tool.git";
previously, it would almost always time-out, therefore we are
On 29.01.2015 20:52, graph-t...@v6y.net wrote:
> Quoting Tiago de Paula Peixoto (2015-01-29 07:35:52)
>> The patch attached should finally take care of it. Could you please test it?
>
> Yes, confirmed, the patch fixes the segfault with sparsehash enabled.
>
The modifications are now in the git ver
Quoting Tiago de Paula Peixoto (2015-01-29 07:35:52)
> The patch attached should finally take care of it. Could you please test it?
Yes, confirmed, the patch fixes the segfault with sparsehash enabled.
Thank you!
-Justin
___
graph-tool mailing list
gra
On 29.01.2015 12:39, malwanain wrote:
> I'me using subgraph isomorphism which comparing two graphs and the result is
> as follows:
>
print(subgraph_isomorphism(a, b))
> [ Graph 0x10f52ff10, at 0x11e6eedd0, with values:
> [ 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 5]>, 'Vertex' and value type 'int32_t',
On 29.01.2015 10:31, graph-t...@v6y.net wrote:
> Quoting Tiago de Paula Peixoto (2015-01-29 01:14:36)
>> Is the GDB backtrace the same as before? Is the missing symbol also the same?
>
> Yes, with the patch applied, and sparsehash enabled, the backtrace is the
> same (minor change in the segfault
I'me using subgraph isomorphism which comparing two graphs and the result is
as follows:
>>> print(subgraph_isomorphism(a, b))
[, ]
My question is that is there any way to get full information about these
numbers?(Vertex name or something)?
regards
--
View this message in context:
http://m
Quoting Tiago de Paula Peixoto (2015-01-29 01:14:36)
> Is the GDB backtrace the same as before? Is the missing symbol also the same?
Yes, with the patch applied, and sparsehash enabled, the backtrace is the same
(minor change in the segfault address), and the missing symbol is still
_ZNKSt3tr14h
On 29.01.2015 01:04, graph-t...@v6y.net wrote:
> Quoting Tiago de Paula Peixoto (2015-01-28 13:41:53)
>> Can you try the patch attached, and re-enable sparsehash?
>
> Yes, I applied the patch "patching file
> src/graph/generation/graph_rewiring.hh" and then removed the
> --disable-sparsehash swit
