[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: hdf5 hdf5oct

From: PhilipNienhuis
Subject: Re: hdf5 hdf5oct
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 03:56:38 -0600 (CST)

jb wrote
> OK took a closer look at h5test.m. There's certainly some problem with the
> creation of a subgroup, and the creation of a complex dataset. I think
> these
> both could probably be made to work if I could get running in
> gdb,
> but failing that  what I added to get the rest of the test to run was just
> this:
> line  120. pre-creating the dataset seemed to be necessary for the
> following
> h5write call.
>    h5create("test.h5",location,size(evalin("caller",data)));
> lnes 144.145. again, pre-creating these seemed to be necessary
>   h5create("test.h5","/rangetest",[10,10],'Datatype','int8'); // the [10
> 10]
> is just an arbitrary size that's big enough
>   h5create("test.h5","/rangetest2",[10,10],'Datatype','single');
> Also I renamed the variable range as it is a reserved word in octave.And
> for some reason I had to load the various h5xxxx functions with explicit
> autoload statements, the pkg add hdf5oct statement by itself didn't work.
> However, I'm not knowledgeable to say specifically what is going on here,
> a
> C developer might see through this stuff quite directly. At any rate my
> matlab codebase which utilizes a 32 rank hdf file with no subgroups and no
> complex numbers is now running in octave so the functionality if a bit
> limited is still quite good. Thanks again for that tip.

Looking better at the patch tracker entry [(patch #8607, [1]), only now I
see that it's originally based on that github repo [2].

AFAICS the patch on the patch tracker seems to have been kept more
up-to-date (July 2018) than the github repo (2015). Would it be better to
keep the path on the tracker current or update the github repo?
In that patch tracker entry JWE commented that incorporating h5ead/h5wite
would be a possibility at some point to replace Octave's internal hfd5
functions; see comments #5 and #7.

I've kept the patch reasonably current so that it compiles in the
development version of Octave but actually I don't need it anymore (that is,
ATM). BTW, I think that patch version of July also compiles with
Like you I noted the "ranks" keyword shadowing but AFAICS it doesn't hurt at
run time so didn't bother delving into it further.
If you don't mind I'll probably add your changes to the patch in a next
build / cross-build and update it on the tracker and credit you.



Sent from:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]