help-octave
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

saving structure error in octave 3.2.3, ubuntu 10.04


From: Steve Thompson
Subject: saving structure error in octave 3.2.3, ubuntu 10.04
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:17:16 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1

Hello,

For our development, we are running Ubuntu LTS 10.04 (because we need something stable). In that distro, Octave 3.2.3 is supplied.

I have a strange error, and it can be boiled down to this:

+++ snip ++++++++++++++++

% this gives me a bad file:
clear y
for i = 1 : 36
y(i).hi = [-0.707106781186547 - 0.707106781186547i, ...
            0.707106781186547 - 0.707106781186547i, ...
           -0.707106781186547 + 0.707106781186547i, ...
            0.707106781186547 + 0.707106781186547i].';
end
save ohmy.mat y
clear y
load ohmy.mat

% this gives me a good file:
clear y
for i = 1 : 36
y(i).hi = [1 + j, 1 - j; 1 - j, 1 + j];
y(i).hi = [-0.70711 - 0.70711i, ...
            0.70711 - 0.70711i, ...
           -0.70711 + 0.70711i, ...
            0.70711 + 0.70711i].';
end
save ohmy.mat y
clear y
load ohmy.mat

+++ snip ++++++++++++++++

In the first case, after the load ohmy.mat, the y structure is now where to be seen. Opening ohmy.mat in a text editor, it appears corrupted.

In the second case, everything is fine.  Opening ohmy.mat reads nicely.

This appears to be some type of bug in Octave 3.2.3 and Octave 3.0.5 as supplied by Ubuntu 10.04.

When I do the same thing in Octave 3.4.2 as supplied by cygwin and Octave 3.4.3 as supplied by the MS Windows install, I do not get this bad behavior: everything works as it should in these cases.

I need to stay in my Ubuntu 10.04 environment. Is there a fixed to Octave 3.2.3 to make this problem go away? Or, do I have to install a newer version of Octave in Ubuntu 10.04? Is there an easy way to install, for example, Octave 3.2.4 in Ubuntu 10.04? (I've poked around the web, and it looks like this has to be done by compiling from source? I'd like to avoid this step if possible!)

Thanks everyone!

Steve



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]