32-bit again?
..
1
'domain error' -: +/@:*"1~ etx u: 'abc'
1
NB. Test for NaN
0 _ 1 (+/@:*"1 -: +/@:*"_"1) _ 0 2 NB. removable NaN
|NaN error
| 0 _ 1(+/@:*"1-:+/@:*"_"1)_ 0 2
|[-189] /home/wheagy/git/jsource/test/g420fg.ijs
JVERSION
Engine: j806/j32/linux
Beta: GPL3/201
Sorry, I was a bit hasty there. I see it on 64-bit linux too.
On 2018-08-06 06:13 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
32-bit again?
..
1
'domain error' -: +/@:*"1~ etx u: 'abc'
1
NB. Test for NaN
0 _ 1 (+/@:*"1 -: +/@:*"_"1) _ 0 2 NB. removable NaN
|NaN error
| 0 _ 1 (+/@:*"1-:+/@:*"
I get
'domain error' -: +/@:*"1~ etx u: 'abc'
|value error: etx
FYI,
--
Raul
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:26 PM Bill Heagy wrote:
>
> Sorry, I was a bit hasty there. I see it on 64-bit linux too.
>
> On 2018-08-06 06:13 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
> > 32-bit again?
> >
> > ..
> > 1
> > 'do
Clarifying, I'm running "RUN1 'g420fg'" or equivalent, and just quoting
the end output.
On 2018-08-06 06:28 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
I get
'domain error' -: +/@:*"1~ etx u: 'abc'
|value error: etx
FYI,
--
For information
Ah...
In that case, etx is from
https://github.com/jsoftware/jsource/blob/master/test/tsu.ijs#L62
etx =: 1 : 'x :: (<:@(13!:11)@i.@0: >@{ 9!:8@i.@0:)' NB. error message
from error number
So, basically, the test is whether
+/@:*"1~ u: 'abc'
produces a domain error.
And, since it does produc
Can you help me debug this? It works on Windows and I don't see any
problem in the code.
The sections of interest are at va2.c:787 and va2.c:840. They run the
two verbs, either or both of which might be failing. The earlier is for
+/@:*"1 .
This is line 787:
NAN0;
D *av=DAV(a),*wv=D
If it can be of any help, everything is fine in my older J version in Linux
:
etx =: 1 : 'x :: (<:@(13!:11)@i.@0: >@{ 9!:8@i.@0:)' NB. error message
'domain error' -: +/@:*"1~ etx u: 'abc'
1
0 _ 1 (+/@:*"1 -: +/@:*"_"1) _ 0 2 NB. removable NaN
1
JVERSION
Engine: j701/2011-01-10/11:25
Librar
This baffles me. I wonder if there is some compiler interaction with
_clearfp(). In case so, I have pushed out another change that puts a
couple of memory fetches between the clearfp()s. Would you please build
that & report back? If it fails on the same line, please try the two
parts individ
Just a guess, recently we switched from gcc to clang. clang is too smart in
optimization that it short circuit some code that deals with NaN, I've put
some inline asm to teach clang register flags need checking. This works in
the past.
Can you try build and test with -O0 or with gcc?
On Tue, Aug
Building with gcc works ok. I'll try clang/-O0
On 2018-08-06 10:01 PM, bill lam wrote:
Just a guess, recently we switched from gcc to clang. clang is too smart in
optimization that it short circuit some code that deals with NaN, I've put
some inline asm to teach clang register flags need checki
clang with -O0 fixes it too.
On 2018-08-06 10:44 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
Building with gcc works ok. I'll try clang/-O0
On 2018-08-06 10:01 PM, bill lam wrote:
Just a guess, recently we switched from gcc to clang. clang is too
smart in
optimization that it short circuit some code that deals wit
Did you check out the latest push to see if that makes any difference?
Henry Rich
On 8/6/2018 10:50 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
clang with -O0 fixes it too.
On 2018-08-06 10:44 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
Building with gcc works ok. I'll try clang/-O0
On 2018-08-06 10:01 PM, bill lam wrote:
Just a gues
And yes, both parts fail (assuming you're talking about the failing line
in g420fg)
On 2018-08-06 10:50 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
clang with -O0 fixes it too.
On 2018-08-06 10:44 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
Building with gcc works ok. I'll try clang/-O0
On 2018-08-06 10:01 PM, bill lam wrote:
Just a
Thanks. I guess we have to figure out how to convince clang to create
the right code then, eh?
Henry Rich
On 8/6/2018 10:59 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
And yes, both parts fail (assuming you're talking about the failing
line in g420fg)
On 2018-08-06 10:50 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
clang with -O0 fix
SVN 861 for the gcc/clang tests and the 2-parts test
On 2018-08-06 10:59 PM, Henry Rich wrote:
Did you check out the latest push to see if that makes any difference?
Henry Rich
On 8/6/2018 10:50 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
clang with -O0 fixes it too.
On 2018-08-06 10:44 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
Bui
I have reverted the latest push and await a compiler fix.
Henry Rich
On 8/6/2018 11:01 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
SVN 861 for the gcc/clang tests and the 2-parts test
On 2018-08-06 10:59 PM, Henry Rich wrote:
Did you check out the latest push to see if that makes any difference?
Henry Rich
On 8/
Ok, I won't expect that tonight B-)
On 2018-08-06 11:20 PM, Henry Rich wrote:
I have reverted the latest push and await a compiler fix.
Henry Rich
On 8/6/2018 11:01 PM, Bill Heagy wrote:
SVN 861 for the gcc/clang tests and the 2-parts test
On 2018-08-06 10:59 PM, Henry Rich wrote:
Did you c
17 matches
Mail list logo
