[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Testing 2.0
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:01:16 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=wBx5uXmsUX3Tg9VukXEd0i1KeWsweX1jxil8kOD7NJ0=; b=bHhTaRvQLPLaxdocGddUAq+IMmIj61iayaaepOFzU45NjXt1BJYdeJcNWYcx29tjVz AyzYyBSRZodftcBm/CS5nuSOimfxcpdg6Tet6WZtXXgNt/9zNHCrOrK3tZKxUyz/ahb+ jZ2hz/mIgwyuMopo8GWxaQTiHJTn4PBDDJrc0=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=mn9Nitw8seGyIdXCAZ1N6HN6qLMx+zFl20vdPD6PpDDFOp4F3Re2NTrRpPYf50hiqH koW4SZ/jXD0KVfQvo4Bax3mXi21lFuAwTK8kMm5bnuF2AJ7yGZu1/kUB69TIBa9BQ8qd kJjStpq1PfyJa3bIlXrZ7iNZ/iJuQRKLDeSc0=
You were too fast for me to test but my dashboard is green:
http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/CDash/buildSummary.php?buildid=1514
IMHO testing via the testsuite should be what we should aim at when
making releases.
- Hauke
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Everybody: we're releasing Eigen 2.0.12 tomorrow.
>
> I don't remember if GCC 3.3 has been tested (sorry Jitse) ? What about
> MSVC 2005, 2008? And ICC?
>
> To test:
>
> cmake -DEIGEN_BUILD_TESTS=ON /path/to/eigen2.0
> make
>
> I'm also happy to announce support for one more platform: QCC/QNX,
> after bug #92.
>
> Benoit
>
> 2010/2/7 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> 2010/2/7 Jitse Niesen <jitse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Benoit Jacob wrote:
>>>
>>>> ah yes, the lu tests fail typically on the exact rank computation, and
>>>> the reason why it fails is that eigen 2.0's algorithm for that is
>>>> really not very accurate.
>>>>
>>>> This has been fixed in the development branch: the exact rank
>>>> computation now works very consistently, so you can run the lu tests
>>>> with 1000 repetitions.
>>>
>>> Here the lu_2 test fails regularly in the development branch. I tried it
>>> with random seeds from 1 to 10 (and the default of 10 repeats) and it fails
>>> with 4, 5 and 6 in line 102. It's good to know that it's supposed to work
>>> consistently, so now I can treat it as a bug and hunt it down when I have
>>> time.
>>
>> Hm indeed it's a bug, then!
>>
>> But here, all lu tests work... so I can't reproduce. I tried
>> EIGEN_SEED=1, too...
>>
>> Benoit
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jitse
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>