Hi Andrew and Xypron, Thank you for your answer and the information. By knowing these information it is not really difficult to handle these things. I will change the (Free-)MPS procedures in our project (CMPL) for these cases. (... PL BOUNDS ... for an unbounded integer).
Cheers, Mike Am 07.03.2011 um 23:41 schrieb Andrew Makhorin: > >> in glpk-4.45/src/glpmps01c you can find the following lines: >> >> else if (kind == GLP_IV) >> glp_set_col_bnds(csa->P, j, GLP_DB, 0.0, 1.0); >> >> The GLPK default indeed seems to be an upper bound of 1. >> >> lpsolve assumes an infinite upper bound, see >> http://lpsolve.sourceforge.net/5.5/mps-format.htm >> >> Same is true for Gurobi and ILOG CPLEX, see >> http://www.gurobi.com/doc/40/refman/node580.html >> http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/~liberti/teaching/xct/cplex/reffileformatscplex.pdf > > Xypron, looks like you have the same misreading as me a while ago :). On > page 21 the ILOG CPLEX 10.0 manual you cited says: > > "If no bounds are specified for the variables within markers [i.e. for > integer variables - A.M.], bounds of 0 (zero) and 1 (one) are assumed. > > >> Hence I would consider the GLPK implementation as inconsistent with >> the defacto standard for MPS files. >> > > > _______________________________________________ Help-glpk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-glpk
