octave-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #43003] polyfit error.... 64 bit problem?


From: Ceral Paquet
Subject: [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #43003] polyfit error.... 64 bit problem?
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 23:55:40 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.7) Gecko/20140802 Firefox/24.7 PaleMoon/24.7.1

URL:
  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?43003>

                 Summary: polyfit error.... 64 bit problem?
                 Project: GNU Octave
            Submitted by: octavebugs
            Submitted on: Sat 16 Aug 2014 11:55:38 PM GMT
                Category: None
                Severity: 3 - Normal
                Priority: 5 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
             Assigned to: None
         Originator Name: 
        Originator Email: 
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any
                 Release: 3.8.2
        Operating System: GNU/Linux

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

So I just compiled 3.8.2 using gcc4.9 on my new 64 bit computer (debian
testing) with the following options:

CFLAGS -O3 -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -march=native -s

configure --enable-64 --enable-jit
--with-blas=/opt/OpenBLAS/lib/libopenblas_nehalemp-r0.2.10.so
LLVM_CONFIG=/usr/bin/llvm-config-3.3

make -j2


Unfortunately I'm not having a fun time. One of my codes gives this error:

octave:1> fval=[3.4422e+06   3.4255e+07   3.0596e+06];
octave:2> range=[0.00000   1.00000   0.33333];
octave:3> polyfit(range,fval,2)
error: qr: subscript indices must be either positive integers less than 2^63
or logicals
error: called from:
error:   /usr/local/share/octave/3.8.2/m/polynomial/polyfit.m at line 114,
column 10
octave:3> 


I am thinking this is something related to 64 bit indexing. I found this
page:

https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter/Compiling-Octave-with-64_002dbit-Indexing.html

I was kind of hoping this is outdated and things are auto-magic these days,
now that 64 bit is more popular... Is it so?




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?43003>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/




reply via email to

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