On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Tim Jenness wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Starlink Software wrote:
>
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_clean.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_detrend.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_fake.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_fit.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_fold.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_ft.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_input.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_link
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_noise.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_ogip.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_output.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_pdm.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_period.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_phase.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_plt.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_sine.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_status.f
> > applications/obsolete/period/period_window.f
>
> I take it someone wanted to run period on 64-bit computer?
No, one of the sysadmins reported a new bug in period, under SL4.2, so I
checked, in case it was something simple, and ended up fixing a memory
allocation issue (important now that glibc seems more sensitive to them).
Then one of them says, but your fix doesn't work for me... which was
because they built under 64bit, so that lot got fixed too. You might also
notice that I backed out of your change to native PGPLOT linking, got some
strange effects to do with PGOPEN not being allowed.
Cheers,
Peter.
|