[Numpy-discussion] Bizarre errors with byteswapping, complex256, PPC
Charles R Harris
charlesr.harris@gmail....
Thu Jun 21 00:43:44 CDT 2012
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Travis Oliphant <travis@continuum.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> > This looks like a problem with comparisons of floating point numbers
> >> > rather than a byteswapping problem per-say. Try to use an almost
> equal
> >> > comparison instead.
> >>
> >> Is that right - that the byteswapped versions might not be strictly
> >> equal to identical numbers but not byteswapped?
> >>
> >> But I should maybe have been clearer - they also subtract wrongly:
> >>
> >> <script>
> >> import numpy as np
> >>
> >> arr = np.arange(10, dtype=np.complex256)
> >> bs_arr = arr.byteswap().newbyteorder('S')
> >> print arr
> >> print bs_arr
> >> print arr - bs_arr
> >> print arr - bs_arr
> >> print arr - bs_arr
> >> </script>
> >>
> >> (np-devel)[mb312@joshlegacy ~/tmp]$ python funny_bs.py
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 1.0+0.0j 2.0+0.0j 3.0+0.0j 4.0+0.0j 5.0+0.0j 6.0+0.0j
> >> 7.0+0.0j 8.0+0.0j 9.0+0.0j]
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 1.0+0.0j 2.0+0.0j 3.0+0.0j 4.0+0.0j 5.0+0.0j 6.0+0.0j
> >> 7.0+0.0j 8.0+0.0j 9.0+0.0j]
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 1.0+0.0j 2.0+0.0j 3.0+0.0j 4.0+0.0j 5.0+0.0j 6.0+0.0j
> >> 7.0+0.0j 8.0+0.0j 9.0+0.0j]
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 1.0+0.0j 2.0+0.0j 3.0+0.0j 4.0+0.0j 5.0+0.0j 6.0+0.0j
> >> 7.0+0.0j 8.0+0.0j 9.0+0.0j]
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 1.0+0.0j 2.0+0.0j 3.0+0.0j 4.0+0.0j 5.0+0.0j 6.0+0.0j
> >> 7.0+0.0j 8.0+0.0j 9.0+0.0j]
> >>
> >> (wrong)
> >>
> >> (np-devel)[mb312@joshlegacy ~/tmp]$ python funny_bs.py
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 1.0+0.0j 2.0+0.0j 3.0+0.0j 4.0+0.0j 5.0+0.0j 6.0+0.0j
> >> 7.0+0.0j 8.0+0.0j 9.0+0.0j]
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 1.0+0.0j 2.0+0.0j 3.0+0.0j 4.0+0.0j 5.0+0.0j 6.0+0.0j
> >> 7.0+0.0j 8.0+0.0j 9.0+0.0j]
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j
> >> 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j]
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j
> >> 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j]
> >> [ 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j
> >> 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j 0.0+0.0j]
> >>
> >> (right)
> >>
> >> See you,
> >>
> >
> > Long doubles on PPC consist of two doubles, so I expect you need to swap
> > both doubles instead of 16 bytes. Strictly speaking, numpy doesn't
> support
> > non ieee floats.
>
> Well - the byteswapping appears to be correct in that the array is
> displayed with the correct values, but then, when doing a subtraction
> on the array, most of the time it is incorrect, but whether it is
> correct or incorrect, appears to be random even with the same
> variables and memory.
>
> Float128 and other numpy dtypes appear to be correct using the same tests.
>
Thinking about it, that makes sense because the swapped version is probably
incorrect ;) That is, the PPC was (is?) selectable to run either little
endian or big endian, so the real test would be if long doubles were
portable between machines set up different ways. The only machines I know
of are little endian, but IIRC, there was at least one brand that was big
endian. However, I suspect we are just reversing the whole 16 bytes, so
even though that is pretty much a meaningless thing to do, it should work...
Is this something that only happens on 32 bit machines?
Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20120620/f60388a7/attachment.html
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list