-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 448
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
Conversation
looks good? @angsch |
Thank you for the fix. 👍 |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
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. |
…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.
I have addressed the comments and force-pushed. |
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