Okay - then I am fully open to other suggestions for fixing this.
The rounding issues are there - they aren't going away so we need a test system that can handle this.
Your help is welcome.
> On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Jason Swails <jason.swails.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Ross Walker <ross.rosswalker.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The code now does this. One can set IG < -1 in the GPU code and it will
>> use the CPU RNG which shoudl address the issue fo tests failures with tests
>> that use the random number generator. It's on the very very long todo list
>> soemwhere before the next release but if someone want to volunteer to
>> update the test cases great.
>>
>
> I'd have done this long ago if I wasn't afraid of masking a *real* error
> by simply clobbering test files on a system where 1/3 of the tests didn't
> pass. I recall a bug last year shortly before the Amber 14 release went
> live that nobody caught during ~2 weeks of testing since all the tests
> already failed, anyway.
>
> As for the other diffs - that needs a rework of dacdif most likely - or we
>> build both SPFP and DPFP precision models and use the DPFP model for
>> running the tests.
>>
>
> I don't understand the need for dacdif changes here? DPFP and SPFP follow
> different code paths, we shouldn't test just one of them (there have been
> bugs in the past targeting only one precision model, if memory serves). We
> should test the one we build... isn't that what we already do?
>
> --
> Jason M. Swails
> BioMaPS,
> Rutgers University
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mar 16 2015 - 10:00:02 PDT
