Re: [lmi] An lmi anomaly with gcc-6.3

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:35:52 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> I thought it might be correlated with the minimal path used in
GC> 'install_msw.sh':
GC> 
GC> export         PATH=/opt/lmi/local/bin:/opt/lmi/local/lib:$PATH
GC> export 
minimal_path=/opt/lmi/local/bin:/opt/lmi/local/lib:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin
GC> ...
GC> make $coefficiency --output-sync=recurse PATH=$minimal_path install
GC> 
GC> I say "correlated" rather than "caused" because I don't see how
GC> changing $PATH could cause the reported error.

 FWIW I always run make using this path, i.e. my command line actually
looks like this:

        % 
PATH=/opt/lmi/local/bin:/opt/lmi/local/lib:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin make 
-s install

(this was the only potentially useful piece of information in this post, so
you can stop reading here).


GC> >  I know it's a cop out, but could it have been just a random fluke (not
GC> > sure if cosmic rays are more or less likely on the eclipse days)?
GC> 
GC> Less, according to
GC>   "Variation of Cosmic Ray Intensity During the Solar Eclipse August 11, 
1999"
GC> in Astronomical Society of the Pacific, ASP Conference Series vol. 205.:
GC>   "the mean drop in low energy cosmic ray flux of gamma rays
GC>   has been detected as 11%"

 Thanks for looking this up, I should have known somebody would have
already investigated this burning question. And it's, of course, great when
scientific results confirm what you'd intuitively expect.

GC> But compare
GC>   "Measurements of Cosmic Rays during the Solar Eclipse of June 19 1936"
GC> in Japanese Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics, Vol. 14, p.265:
GC>   "neither variation in intensity, nor fluctuation of cosmic rays ...
GC>   occurred"

 This must be "bad science" everyone is speaking about because it disagrees
with my (not very deeply) held beliefs.


GC> > and, if so, is it enough to run "make clean" to see it happen again
GC> > or not?
GC> 
GC> Yes, 'make clean' has detoxified the harmful emanations and brought
GC> about a reharmonization of the build.

 Ah, glad to hear this.

GC> Or, if you want a "scientific" explanation, no other 'make' target even
GC> used the boost regex stuff, and re-extracting it from old archives
GC> didn't change any of its source files' dates, so it didn't get rebuilt,
GC> and objects built with gcc-4.9.1 use a different API.

 I prefer just saying that cleansing is necessary after every eclipse, to
symbolize the beginning of a new era of lmi development. This seems much
easier to understand than the explanation above and gives the same results,
so, by scientific method itself, it is an equally powerful theory.

 Regards,
VZ