Hi,
Thanks for your efforts.
I created bug 119 and will take a look.
Scott
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:27:17PM -0500, Volodymyr Babin wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> > OK, I've given that a go, to no real avail. It still dies in the same
> > place. I haven't filled the bondtype.cpp up with debugging statements,
> > as I suppose it's better to focus our energies on bondtype.c at present.
> >
> > I've attached the output file I got from the C++ version, though it
> > doesn't really tell me anything new.
>
> It does say something to me though: both .c and .cpp are broken
> [this implies that the problem most likely is in the part that
> is shared by the two].
>
> >> As far as I could understand the 'bond2' array gets malloc-ed and not
> >> initialized (at least some members do not get initialized); therefore
> >> those different values are to be expected (it is just garbage). OTOH,
> >> this is not necessarily an error.
> >
> > I understand. So much for an obvious and easy solution...
>
> It was remotely not a solution, just explanation of your observations
> of very different values (of uninitialized memory) seen on linux and
> leopard. I did not go though the loops deeper because: (a) we do not
> have leopard here, (b) Junmei should be able to navigate though this
> part much faster than me.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Volodymyr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Mon Nov 30 2009 - 12:30:04 PST
