Le 22/06/2013 15:57, Thomas de Groot nous fit lire :
> On 22-6-2013 10:38, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> 2. computation of max_gradient in isosurface is not thread-safe, have
>> you tested (the slow) -WT1 option (limiting to one thread, it's slow,
>> but then safe)
>>
>> (point 2 is already reported as #296 in bugs.povray.org)
>>
>
> No message with -WT1 either.
>
> Thomas
With 3.6 I got (320x240):
=========================
File: iso.pov  Line: 44
File Context (5 lines):
                     - P1aa(x, y, z)*P1gain
                    }
isosurface {
  function {
Shutdown Warning: The maximum gradient found was 8.130, but max_gradient
of the
 isosurface was set to 5.000. The isosurface may contain holes! Adjust
 max_gradient to get a proper rendering of the isosurface.



With 3.7RC7+ (icpc compiled, 12 threads, 800x600):
=============
File: iso.pov  Line: 44
Shutdown Warning: The maximum gradient found was 8.143, but max_gradient
of the
 isosurface was set to 5.000. The isosurface may contain holes! Adjust
 max_gradient to get a proper rendering of the isosurface.



With 3.7RC7+ (icpc compiled, 1 thread, 800x600):
=============
File: iso.pov  Line: 44
Shutdown Warning: The maximum gradient found was 8.339, but max_gradient
of the
 isosurface was set to 5.000. The isosurface may contain holes! Adjust
 max_gradient to get a proper rendering of the isosurface.




Same kind of result with gcc compiled.

With 3.6 at 800x600:
====================
File: iso.pov  Line: 44
File Context (5 lines):
                     - P1aa(x, y, z)*P1gain
                    }
isosurface {
  function {
Shutdown Warning: The maximum gradient found was 8.339, but max_gradient
of the
 isosurface was set to 5.000. The isosurface may contain holes! Adjust
 max_gradient to get a proper rendering of the isosurface.

So, I cannot duplicate the original issue, at least on the unix port.

> Whatever value for max_gradient I use (too low or too high) the
> expected warning never appears in the message window like it used to
> do. I need it to determine the values for evaluate.

The only difference is less context.
Or is it a Windows specific issue ? (I hope not)

Post a reply to this message