Re: [help-GIFT] Re: Patches AMD 64 next try...

[risc]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:48:18AM +0100, Wolfgang Müller wrote:
> On Monday 26 February 2007 16:07, address@hidden wrote:
> > You and I are getting different results. You're using whats in CVS, and
> > the one line change i mentioned in the last mail, right?
> >
> > i used to run into something that sounds like your bug, but i dont remember
> > the details, its been months since i messed with it.
> >
> 
> I applied the patches you sent to this list relevant to FeatureExtraction 
> (the 
> other ones, too), and I found that most of them were already applied in CVS. 
> So I had the impression of being pretty up-to-date :-) .
> 
> I will post my current gabor.c to this list to make sure that we speak about 
> the same thing. It's at home behind a NAT so tomorrow earliest.
> 
> > personally, i break things, then valgrind them to death. i'll let you know
> > when i have progress with this.
> 
> The fact that you said that the output of your stuff was bit-compatible to 
> David's suggests that David's version had the same bug (yielding some 
> calculation glitches), but that the optimisations make it become apparent as 
> segfault on 64 bit.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wolfgang
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Wolfgang Müller
> LS Medieninformatik
> Universität Bamberg
> Check out the SIG MM web site http://www.sigmm.org
> 

When i say bit compatible, i mean bit compatible to the one on my 32bit box.

reguarding patches, i've imported 01-20 of my set into the CVS. you should
be able to perform the one-line uint64_t change, and use whats in CVS, so we're 
on the same page.

i havent commited the "change x or y to uint64_t" patch, honestly, due to not
knowing why it *works*. that scares me.

Julia Longtin <address@hidden>