This was a test to see if SPM had been properly installed. Many of the SPM
questions relate to incorrect installation, so I wanted to save time by
having some of these questions answered automatically (especially the one
about the problems with the default settings of WinZip).
This piece of checking is to test whether there is an executable spm_atranspa
that does not crash out. If there is, then it assumes that the mex files
have been compiled for that platform.
What happens if you simply type the following?
If it does not appear to do anything, then things should be fine and I don't
know why the code reported the problem. If it gives some error message, then
there is something wrong with the installation and the code did the right
On Thursday 26 June 2008 05:47, Neil Killeen wrote:
> I run matlab on an SGI Altix IA64 platform. There is no native
> for matlab for IA64 so it runs in the Altix's IA32 emulation layer.
> I.e. this means
> the Altix can run X86 Matlab binaries. When we start Matlab, we
> provide the
> -glnx86 argument to force the correct architecture.
> Now, we have been running SPM5 for some time on this platform. The
> last patch I applied was # 573. This version of SPM5 starts up and
> runs fine on the Altix with no modification.
> I have now just upgraded to patch # 1782. I believe the spm.m startup
> script has become cleverer :-) It now triggers an errror:
> >> spm
> ??? Error using ==> spm>check_installation at 1190
> SPM uses a number of "mex" files, which are compiled functions.
> These need to be compiled for the various platforms on which SPM
> is run. At the FIL, where SPM is developed, the number of
> computer platforms is limited. It is therefore not possible to
> release a version of SPM that will run on all computers. See
> for information about how to compile mex files for GLNX86
> in MATLAB 184.108.40.2068 (R2007b).
> Error in ==> spm at 308
> On looking inside spm.m in the previous version. the piece
> of code for checking the mex files does not exist and so this
> error did not occur.
> The same range of Mex file architectures exists in the version # 573
> release which ran happily. If I copy in the spm.m from Version # 573
> into the # 1782 system SPM does start OK (but I have not explored
> extensively). If I comment out the Mex test code in spm.m in
> the new version SPM does not start.
> I'm not sure exactly what it's unhappy about. Given that the error
> does refer to GLNX86 (the correct platform) does that mean I should
> explicitly have mex files of the form *.mexglnx86 ? SPM comes with
> mex files of the form *.mexglx only (perhaps these are a synonym)
> I also wonder whether in # 573 we never tried to run a function
> which uses a mex file; so there may be an undiscovered problem.
> thanks for generic and specific advice on this
> p.s. the kernel on the Altix is V 2.6 . To get a correct Mex file,
> one must
> compile on an X86 2.6 kernel machine and then transfer. Can someone
> tell me what kernel the *.mexglx files were compiled with ?