On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:48:18AM +0100, Wolfgang Müller wrote: > On Monday 26 February 2007 16:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ help-GIFT mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gift
