I used #11280 and it fixes the problem. Thank you, Jacob!
Sebastian On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 12:06:52 AM UTC-5, Jacob Quinn wrote: > > I'm not able to reproduce the above behavior with my latest changes to > #11280, so that's a good sign! > > If you're feeling ambitious/able, feel free to give that PR a spin to see > if it fixes it for you as well. > > -Jacob > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Jacob Quinn <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I'm actually just about to do another round of windows testing on #11280, >> so I'll test this out as well. Thanks for the report! >> >> -Jacob >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Sebastian Souyris <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> It seems that there is a bug when you define several SharedArray in one >>> call (for example using include("file.jl")). Or maybe I'm missing >>> something about how to use SharedArray. I'm using Windows 7. Let me explain >>> with an example: >>> >>> This code has no problem. It assign correctly the values of SharedArrays >>> a and b: >>> >>> ###### >>> julia> a = SharedArray(Float64, (2)); >>> julia> b = SharedArray(Float64, (2)); >>> julia> for i in 1:2 >>> a[i] = i >>> end >>> julia> for i in 1:2 >>> b[i] = i+2 >>> end >>> julia> a >>> 2-element SharedArray{Float64,1}: >>> 1.0 >>> 2.0 >>> julia> b >>> 2-element SharedArray{Float64,1}: >>> 3.0 >>> 4.0 >>> ###### >>> >>> But the following code has a problem. It assign incorrectly the same >>> value to a and b: >>> >>> ###### >>> julia> a = SharedArray(Float64, (2));b = SharedArray(Float64, (2)); >>> >>> julia> for i in 1:2 >>> a[i] = i >>> end >>> >>> julia> for i in 1:2 >>> b[i] = i+2 >>> end >>> >>> julia> a >>> 2-element SharedArray{Float64,1}: >>> 3.0 >>> 4.0 >>> >>> julia> b >>> 2-element SharedArray{Float64,1}: >>> 3.0 >>> 4.0 >>> ###### >>> >>> If you define multiple SharedArray in one call, the values of all the >>> SharedArrays of that call are equal to the values of the last >>> SharedArray that was defined and has assigned values. >>> >>> Is this behavior expected? Or is it a bug? >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >> >
