JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for STARDEV Archives


STARDEV Archives

STARDEV Archives


STARDEV@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

STARDEV Home

STARDEV Home

STARDEV  September 2005

STARDEV September 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: HDS64

From:

Tim Jenness <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Starlink development <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:46:33 -1000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (96 lines)

Brian,

  I think I'm getting the hang of it. The code in the fortran interface is 
the culprit since it relies on HDS_PTYPE == F77_INTEGER_TYPE.

  The comment in hds1.h concerning changing the file format if HDS_PTYPE
is set to long long worries me a bit since it implies that if I create a 
file with HDS_PTYPE == long long that it won't be readable on the same 
computer where HDS was compiled with HDS_PTYPE == int.

  If that is true then HDS_PTYPE is extremely dangerous. Does HDS spot the 
problem? Does the file format say whether HDS_PTYPE is 8 bytes or 4 so 
that it can convert?

  Can a new format file be read on a system that does not have an 8 byte 
INT_BIG? (but is compiled with the current codebase) Or does this switch 
to HDS64 mean that we are now locked into 8 byte integers? Currently the 
test for INT_BIG == long long does not allow for a 'long long' being 
unavailable. Should the compiler switch to 4 byte long for INT_BIG or 
should it refuse to compile because it won't be able to read the files 
anyway?

  I've had a go at building with HDS_64 defined. It fixes the signedness 
problem since HDS_64 seems to be entirely designed for the case where 
sizeof(HDS_PTYPE) != sizeof(Fortran int). Once I'd fixed a problem in the 
fortran interface (dat_shape was not getting it's return values) I've now 
got hds_test.f core dumping when it annuls the first HDS locator.

#0  0x00a92d40 in dat1_cvt_dtype (bad=-1207970304, nval=200, 
imp=0x8de8908, exp=0x0,
     nbad=0xbfebe874) at daucnv.c:183
183                          des[n] = (_INTEGER) src[n];        /* Overflow? */
#1  0x00a96bb4 in dat1_cvt (bad=1, nval=200, imp=0x8de6d7c, exp=0x8de6d88, 
nbad=0xbfebe874)
     at dautypes.c:148
#2  0x00a95085 in dau_flush_data (data=0x8de6d40) at dauflush.c:109
#3  0x00a8f551 in datUnmap (locator_str=0xb7ffd600 "", status=0xbfebe92c) 
at datmap.c:532
#4  0x00aa3631 in dat_unmap_ (locator=0xbfebe930 
"8mb\177\177\177\177\002",
     status=0xbfebe92c, locator_length=15) at fortran_interface.c:1905
#5  0x08048a58 in MAIN__ () at hds_test.f:83

I'm assuming the problem is that exp is a null pointer on entry and 
daucnv.c does not check for this error condition. 'exp' is defined in the 
routine above but not by the time it is passed to dat1_cvt_dtype. This is 
well out of my depth though.

  So to summarise:

   * Must HDS_PTYPE be identical on all systems that use HDS64 for the
     files to interoperate?

   * Should HDS_PTYPE always be a fortran int?

  I hope you have time to answer my worries.

Tim

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tim Jenness wrote:

> Okay. The problem seems to be in HDS_PTYPE. Since it was a dimension I made 
> it unsigned rather than signed but that has caused big problems.
>
> Brian: any comment?
>
> I don't know why but I'll revert that change in CVS and then try to see if 
> it's an obvious problem with the fortran interface somewhere (which has a 
> signed/unsisgned issue).
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Tim Jenness wrote:
>
>> 
>> Warning: I think HDS (HDS64 after merge and tweaks) broke in the past few 
>> days. I haven't worked out when but if I do an fits2ndf on
>> 
>> http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj/c18o.fit
>> 
>> I get a file that is listed as 137439196672 bytes. It really did take up 
>> that much disk space but a reboot and jorunal fix listed the file as 245760 
>> bytes (the correct size) but still took up 137MB until it was rm'ed.
>> 
>> I'm going to have to try to rebuild HDS from the past few days to work out 
>> exactly when it broke.
>> 
>> 
>
>

-- 
Tim Jenness
JAC software
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~timj

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2023
January 2023
December 2022
July 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
December 2021
October 2021
July 2021
April 2021
January 2021
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
May 2020
November 2019
October 2019
July 2019
June 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
August 2018
July 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
December 2017
October 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
2004
April 2003
2003


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager