Did my suggested change not work for you?
Satish
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Matthew Knepley wrote:
I spent a bunch of time on this today. This shit is hopelessly broken. It
sucks completely.
I cannot get it to run, nor see why it is causing stack overruns and SEGVs.
If anyone does
not think it
BTW: What linux are you using? ubuntu version? i686 or x86_64? etc...
also try:
arg-name = (char *)MALLOC( strlen(p) + 100 );
satish
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009, Satish Balay wrote:
Did my suggested change not work for you?
Satish
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Matthew Knepley wrote:
I spent a
before they begin their experiments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20091225/43ac840d
Well - perhaps you can try the change to unmodified bfort.
Sure - I don't understatand the bug - and what my suggested change
does. However my observation is: with that change - valgrind log is
clean for me.
Satish
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009, Matthew Knepley wrote:
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 10:14 AM,
Well - normally the first step with detecting the bugs is to report
them to the author - and ask for a fix..
Satish
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009, Matthew Knepley wrote:
I can try, but I still think replacement is the only real alternative. This
is not
able to be debugged, or you would not recommend
Can you send me the valgrind.log - with the patch applied to the
unmodified sowing-1.1.11-a.tar.gz?
Also the command you are using to generate this log?
I've used the following:
valgrind --tool=memcheck -q --log-file=valgrind.log bfort -dir `pwd`/ftn-auto
-ansi -nomsgs -noprofile -anyname
attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20091225/5b81b0bd/attachment.html
/attachments/20091225/617f5815/attachment.html
