On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 12:54 +0200, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 10:04 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > This is a complicated issue to describe but i think the bottom line is > > that the test is just wonky here. the behaviour it's checking for is: > > wrong in old numpy, but we do it anyway (bug) > > wrong in current numpy without RELAXED_STRIDES, and we get it right > > (I.e. don't do it, fixed bug) > > correct in current numpy with RELAXED_STRIDES (and I think the test > > will pass if you build 1.8 this way?) (fixed bug again, since the > > definition of "correct" flipped) > > correct in future numpys > >
OK, I had a look. And it is the 1-dimensional size-1 special case that was always "relaxed", but is not anymore. If anyone thinks this is a problem, we could re-add the special case (rethinking it, it is almost impossible to hurt, since the array has only one element). Otherwise, I think the test should check if numpy was compiled with relaxed strides, for more extensive tests this is necessary anyway. - Sebastian > Sounds about right, but I did not yet look at the test exactly. The old > numpy had some corner cases where the *not* relaxed strides were not > enforced. I could imagine that the test was written to accommodate the > relaxed strides, but runs through fine with the old behaviour, too. > > That said, if this is the case, this must be something like a size 1 > array corner case, so I would agree with Nathaniel, that probably the > test should just see whether relaxed strides is active or not and change > behaviour accordingly. > > If this has to do with the Buffer protocol change we have to have a > closer look if it might be breaking code out there. (even if the buffer > protocol change is correct and this should be fixed on cythons end in > that case) > > - Sebastian > > > > (@seberg, does that look right?) > > > > I guess maybe we could go back and make sure it stays broken in 1.8, > > but it's probably not worth the trouble because this is such a corner > > case. Nothing real is going to break because of this AFAICT. > > > > -n > > > > On 2 Oct 2013 08:31, "Christoph Gohlke" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 9/30/2013 8:17 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > NumPy 1.8.0rc1 is up now on sourceforge > > > > <http://sourceforge.net/projects/numpy/files/NumPy/1.8.0rc1/> .The > > binary builds are included except for Python 3.3 on > > windows, which will > > arrive later. Many thanks to Ralf for the binaries, > > and to those who > > found and fixed the bugs in the last beta. Any > > remaining bugs are all my > > fault ;) I hope this will be the last release before > > final, so please > > test it thoroughly. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > One more: Cython-0.19.1 fails relaxed_strides.test_one_sized > > with "ValueError: ndarray is not C-contiguous". Tested on > > numpy-MKL-1.8.0rc1-win-amd64-py2.7 and msvc9. > > > > > > https://github.com/cython/cython/blob/0.19.x/tests/memoryview/relaxed_strides.pyx#L29 > > > > The relevant test output is attached. > > > > Christoph > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
