Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix the wrong implementation of the new tests for xblat1.f #964

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 19, 2024

Conversation

cdluminate
Copy link
Contributor

@cdluminate cdluminate commented Dec 21, 2023

Description

Fixes: #963

Since this is a regression after upgrading from v3.11.0 to v3.12.0, we can narrow down the range of the bug into the newly added SB1NRM2 subroutine. According to the buildlog and the documentation in the code, the VALUES(9), calculated as SXVALS(XX,2) should be infty. But the current code is returning a zero (or randomly) initialized variable YY, which does not make sense.

In fact, if you go back to the reference implementation, namely the supplementary material of this paper
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3061665
You can find a similar implementation of the SXVALS function in the la_xxvals.F90 file. This patch corrests the test following the reference code.

Checklist

  • The documentation has been updated.
  • If the PR solves a specific issue, it is set to be closed on merge.

@cdluminate
Copy link
Contributor Author

looks good? @angsch

@cdluminate cdluminate changed the title Fix the wrong implementation of the xblat1.f implementations. (Fixes: #963) Fix the wrong implementation of the new tests for xblat1.f Dec 21, 2023
@angsch
Copy link
Collaborator

angsch commented Dec 21, 2023

Thank you for the fix. 👍

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 21, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (db501d9) 0.00% compared to head (c6ba5cd) 0.00%.

❗ Current head c6ba5cd differs from pull request most recent head d371e22. Consider uploading reports for the commit d371e22 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #964   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage    0.00%    0.00%           
=======================================
  Files        1930     1930           
  Lines      190421   190421           
=======================================
  Misses     190421   190421           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

…eference-LAPACK#963)

Since this is a regression after upgrading from v3.11.0 to v3.12.0, we can
narrow down the range of the bug into the newly added SB1NRM2 subroutine.
According to the buildlog and the documentation in the code, the VALUES(9),
calculated as SXVALS(XX,2) should be infty. But the current code is returning
a zero (or randomly) initialized variable YY, which does not make sense.

In fact, if you go back to the reference implementation, namely the
supplementary material of this paper
  https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3061665
You can find a similar implementation of the SXVALS function in the
`la_xxvals.F90` file. This patch corrests the test following the reference
code.
@cdluminate
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have addressed the comments and force-pushed.

@langou langou merged commit a56dbda into Reference-LAPACK:master Jun 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[v3.12.0] sblat1.f (SNRM2) test fail on i386 architectures
3 participants