Re: [AMBER-Developers] Third (final?) release candidate for Amber 12

From: David A Case <>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:18:46 -0400

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012, tluchko wrote:

> 1) The majority of failures are differences in the last digit and are
> likely just round-off errors. I.e., these should really pass. These
> false positives would go away if we doubled the error tolerance. E.g.,
> dacdif -r 1e-6
> becomes
> dacdif -r 2e-6
> This should let round-offs through but catch everything else.

Can you send me a patch?

> 3) the fibre-diffraction module has problems with 10 threads when built
> with GNU and PGI.

fixed...this test should not run in parallel.


AMBER-Developers mailing list
Received on Mon Apr 02 2012 - 11:30:05 PDT
Custom Search