[SciPy-Dev] [SciPy-User] ANN: scipy 0.8.0 release candidate 3

[Vincent Davis]

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Derek Homeier
<derek at astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
>
>>
>> Notably, I never got trouble-free builds with 2.7 - both the numpy
>> and scipy test suites fail
>> with a bus error - I already tried compiling with gcc 4.2 instead of
>> 4.0, but to no avail.
>>
>> Yes, there are issues with 2.7. Compiling against numpy 1.4.1
>> doesn't work, against trunk also has some issues on OS X. As Vincent
>> pointed out, with a 64-bit Python 2.7 built with gcc-4.2 (python.org
>> binaries are gcc-4.0) it does work without problems.
>
> well, as I said I did try the gcc-4.2 build, but probably missed that
> Vincent was compiling numpy trunk -
> I probably should try again on my 10.6 64-bit installation.
For you information
Python version 2.7.0+ (release27-maint:82653, Jul  8 2010, 14:45:18)
[GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5659)]

Build commands used
python 2.7
./configure --with-universal-archs=64-bit
--enable-universalsdk=/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.5.sdk
--enable-framework

for numpy and scipy I used
LDFLAGS="-arch x86_64" FFLAGS="-arch x86_64" py27 setupscons.py scons

Vincent


> Anyway, compiling both numpy 1.4.1 and scipy 0.8.0rc3 works fine both
> on i386/ppc 32-bit and and x86_64,
> using the fink build system. And it is running as well, so far, except
> for those tests - btw.
> numpy.test(verbose=5) crashes at
> test_multiarray.TestIO.test_ascii ... Bus error
>
> and scipy.test() at
> Testing that kmeans2 init methods work. ... Bus error
>
>>
>> These should have been fixed by r6520:
>> -        self.check_cephes_vs_amos(iv, iv, rtol=1e-12, atol=1e-305)
>> +        self.check_cephes_vs_amos(iv, iv, rtol=5e-9, atol=1e-305)
>>
>>          data(gammaincinv, 'gamma_inv_big_data_ipp-
>> gamma_inv_big_data',
>> -             (0,1), 2, rtol=5e-12),
>> +             (0,1), 2, rtol=1e-11),
>>
>> Can you check if you have these changes, and with what accuracy the
>> tests pass?
>>
> I have (rc3 tarball), but it's a different couple of tests.
> 'gamma_inv_big_data_ipp-gamma_inv_big_data' actually still passes with
> rtol=2.1e-12.
>
> These are the minimal accuracy changes needed:
>
> --- /sw/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scipy/special/tests/test_data.py
> 2010-07-11 17:25:24.000000000 +0200
> +++ test_data.py        2010-07-17 21:13:07.000000000 +0200
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@
>          data(gamma, 'test_gamma_data_ipp-near_1', 0, 1),
>          data(gamma, 'test_gamma_data_ipp-near_2', 0, 1),
>          data(gamma, 'test_gamma_data_ipp-near_m10', 0, 1),
> -        data(gamma, 'test_gamma_data_ipp-near_m55', 0, 1),
> +        data(gamma, 'test_gamma_data_ipp-near_m55', 0, 1, rtol=7e-12),
>          data(gamma, 'test_gamma_data_ipp-near_0', 0j, 1, rtol=2e-9),
>          data(gamma, 'test_gamma_data_ipp-near_1', 0j, 1, rtol=2e-9),
>          data(gamma, 'test_gamma_data_ipp-near_2', 0j, 1, rtol=2e-9),
> --- /sw/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scipy/special/tests/test_basic.py
> 2010-07-11 17:25:24.000000000 +0200
> +++ test_basic.py       2010-07-17 21:28:07.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1618,7 +1618,7 @@
>
>          # Most error apparently comes from AMOS and not our
> implementation;
>          # there are some problems near integer orders there
> -        assert dc[k] < 1e-9, (v[k], x[k], iv(v[k], x[k]), iv(v[k],
> x[k]+0j))
> +        assert dc[k] < 1.9e-7, (v[k], x[k], iv(v[k], x[k]), iv(v[k],
> x[k]+0j))
>
>      def test_kv_cephes_vs_amos(self):
>          #self.check_cephes_vs_amos(kv, kn, rtol=1e-9, atol=1e-305)
>
> Of course nearly 2e-7 seems a quite high tolerance - don't know if
> that's acceptable.
>
>>
>> Both standard and full test pass on i386 and x86_64, but I noticed
>> the following strange behaviour:
>> when running the test suite twice in a row, the second run produces
>> these failures:
>>
>> This is because warnings are only raised once from the same code, so
>> the check if they're raised a second time fails. So no problem.
>>
>
> Ah, that makes sense, thanks!
>
> Cheers,
>                                                        Derek
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>