ok, I believe I've now a fix in https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/9700
. Probably a subtle multi-threading issue related to different memory
ordering between M1 and Intel CPUs (or just that it was easier to
trigger on M1)
Le 16/04/2024 à 21:01, Even Rouault via gdal-dev a écrit :
Hi,
I've
Le 18/04/2024 à 23:54, Andrew C Aitchison via gdal-dev a écrit :
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Even Rouault via gdal-dev wrote:
I'm proposing in https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/9693 that we add
a CI "stale" workflow for pull requests without activity. It is
mostly a copy from QGIS similar workflow
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Even Rouault via gdal-dev wrote:
I'm proposing in https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/9693 that we add a CI
"stale" workflow for pull requests without activity. It is mostly a
copy from QGIS similar workflow with the following changes:
- restrict the scope to pull requests
Hi Daniel,
Thank you. I tried your commands exactly with gdal 3.8.3 and am seeing the odd
type of output I was describing in the northeastern most reaches of the images.
Would you be willing to verify if you see that or not?
Here is the result of the debug messaging. I think a screenshot
Hi Joe,
My minimal change is just to add the missing "RPC_DEM=srtm_12_05.tif" and
remove the "RPC_HEIGHT=350". RPC_HEIGHT appears to override the use of any
supplied DEM, and the docs at least hint that this is the expected
behaviour.
```
gdalwarp --config CPL_DEBUG ON \
-t_srs EPSG:32610 \
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for trying with the data! I appreciate that. The gdal command I provided
in the sample-gdal-call.txt file is the only one I could get to have "good"
looking results. What command did you use to include the DEM?
If there has been a fix between 3.6 and 3.8.3 that helps with
Hi Joe,
Trying your commands with GDAL 3.8.3, the results don't seem to be as bad
as what you're reporting - I don't see big strips missing. Adding in the
DEM file as Even mentioned, it seems to be doing what I'd expect (the
correction isn't "right" because of the georeferencing offset, but it's
Hi,
I'm proposing in https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/9693 that we add a
CI "stale" workflow for pull requests without activity. It is mostly a
copy from QGIS similar workflow with the following changes:
- restrict the scope to pull requests only and not tickets (although we
could
