search

PDLPorters / PDL-NetCDF

PDL-NetCDF
https://p3rl.org/PDL::NetCDF
Other
0 stars 2 forks source link

PDL::NetCDF #6

Open cbrownstevenson opened 2 years ago

cbrownstevenson commented 2 years ago

In the PDL::NetCDF module, in typemap3. Unsigned PDL::byte are being mapped to NC_BYTE () - signed. Shouldn't be NC_UBYTE().

PDL's signed byte type is sbyte NetCDF.pm line 930

mohawk2 commented 2 years ago

PDL does indeed support sbyte, but only as of 2.064. This library currently supports PDL 2.019 and above. @doughunt Would you be Ok with increasing the minimum PDL to 2.064?

cbrownstevenson commented 2 years ago

@mohawk2 the version that I am seeing on NetCDF.pm is 4.20. Ah, but the PDL version is 2.020.

mohawk2 commented 2 years ago

@cbrownstevenson That suggests your installed version of PDL doesn't have sbyte, which means you'd have to upgrade your PDL to get the benefit of such a change?

doughunt commented 2 years ago

Hi all:  Yes, we have been living with this limitation for a long time and have worked around it.  Ours is a large production organization with many dozens of compute clusters.  It takes a long while to upgrade, and there is little motivation to spend lots of programmer and sysadmin time to make a change which may result in down time for our customers.

We will upgrade (I would say) within the next year or so.

Regards,

  Doug

NB:  cosmicops:  There is desire to force an upgrade in PDL to allow PDL::NetCDF to have a signed byte type, something which our version of PDL does not support, but more recent versions do.

On 10/8/22 10:47 AM, mohawk2 wrote:

@cbrownstevenson https://github.com/cbrownstevenson That suggests your installed version of PDL doesn't have |sbyte|, which means you'd have to upgrade your PDL to get the benefit of such a change?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/PDLPorters/PDL-NetCDF/issues/6#issuecomment-1272356304, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVLHCWEYHVHLSQTBQ7FAW3WCGQQJANCNFSM6AAAAAAQ7O3C6U. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

mohawk2 commented 2 years ago

If it helps, PDL 2.080 looks very solid on CPAN Testers (https://www.cpantesters.org/distro/P/PDL.html?oncpan=1&distmat=1&version=2.080&grade=2) with the exception of BSD, which has older and buggy versions of clang, which PDL now triggers those bugs and crashes the compiler. With GCC, or more recent clang, it seems to work well.

Therefore, it appears to me (subject to proper testing for your application), that upgrading to PDL 2.080 should not cause failures or downtime.

mohawk2 commented 1 week ago

@doughunt What's the situation with this?