Hi Paul,
I'm using gcc 4.1 to compile Coot (with gtk2) on a x86_64 CentOS-5 Linux and
an i386 CentOS-5 Linux. The resulting i386 binaries works well but the
x86_64 don't. Here comes the logs of a crash while opening an mtz...
With the x86_64 binary:
.....
dataset filename: /root/tmp/P41_refmac14.mtz
DEBUG:: getting f_phi_columns...
DEBUG:: getting f_phi_columns...
DEBUG:: in column_selector_using_cmtz got read success of 1
Making map from /d3e1/d3e1-2b/FWT and /d3e1/d3e1-2b/PHWT
making conventional map from MTZ filename /root/tmp/P41_refmac14.mtz using
/d3e1/d3e1-2b/FWT /d3e1/d3e1-2b/PHWT
DEBUG:: getting f_phi_columns...
reading mtz file...
Number of reflections: 31599
finding ASU unique map points with sampling rate 1.5
done grid sampling...Nuvw = (-2147483648,-2147483648,-2147483648)
/usr/xtal/coot-0.3.3/bin/coot: line 111: 28350 Segmentation fault
$coot_real $*
The same with the i386 binary (no crash) :
...
dataset filename: /root/P41_refmac14.mtz
DEBUG:: getting f_phi_columns...
DEBUG:: getting f_phi_columns...
DEBUG:: in column_selector_using_cmtz got read success of 1
Making map from /d3e1/d3e1-2b/FWT and /d3e1/d3e1-2b/PHWT
making conventional map from MTZ filename /root/P41_refmac14.mtz using
/d3e1/d3e1-2b/FWT /d3e1/d3e1-2b/PHWT
DEBUG:: getting f_phi_columns...
reading mtz file...
Number of reflections: 31599
finding ASU unique map points with sampling rate 1.5
done grid sampling...Nuvw = ( 120, 128, 224)
Grid...Nuvw = ( 120, 128, 224)
doing fft...
done fft...
INFO:: 0.173 seconds to read MTZ file
INFO:: 0.241 seconds to initialize map
INFO:: 0.155 seconds for FFT
INFO:: 0.004 seconds for statistics
Map mean: ........ -1.30834e-06
Map sigma: ....... 0.282868
Map maximum: ..... 3.77786
Map minimum: ..... -0.781511
INFO:: 0.091 seconds for contour map
INFO:: 0.664 seconds in total
State file 0-coot.state.scm written.
State file 0-coot-history.py written.
State file 0-coot-history.scm written.
ObjectCache: Leaked 0001 refs to <C 2c 2 Nuvw = ( 120, 128, 224)>
ObjectCache: Leaked 0001 refs to <C 2c 2>
...
The negatives values we see on the x98_64 log make me think there's a wrong
sized variable or table somewhere...
I know this mail will not help at all but I had to post it.
Regards
|