Am 02.07.2014 18:44, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> Yes. Compile, link, run.
>
> * make check : ok for the 3 (g++, icpc, clang++)
>
> Yet, it seems gcc (only) is too fast on benchmark. (4 seconds on 12 threads)
>
> Rendering benchmark gives the attached pictures (the icpc seems ok,
> within usual time, but gcc is bogus and too fast, far too fast)

Did you do a clean build for the gcc version? Maybe one of the earlier 
builds left some crap behind.

If the bug persists even with a clean build, please open a new issue on 
GitHub, as we're no longer talking about build problems now.

Post a reply to this message

Le 02/07/2014 19:19, clipka nous fit lire :
> Am 02.07.2014 19:07, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>> Le 02/07/2014 12:04, clipka nous fit lire :
>>
>>>
>>> While you're at it, could you please do me a favour and also try
>>> building the new "feature/colour_model" branch? I did some nasty
>>> template stuff there, and need to know if the Linux compilers can digest
>>> it.
>>>
>> You're welcome, until my soon-to-be-holidays (very soon now!).
>>
>> g++ does not like it.
>> clang++ neither.
>> And icpc is not better.
>>
>> All of them get a problem with ">>" in template.. it should be "> >" to
>> avoid ambiguity with >> operator... so it fails. But even correcting
>> that is not enough.
>>
>> The error log of gcc and icpc are past the 1.8MBytes (the largest is 7
>> MBytes)... so I just attach the clang one.
> 
> Can you please give me the output with ">>" corrected to "> >"? Thanks a
> lot!
> 
Here it is, attached.

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'errorcolourcl2.txt' (555 KB)

Le 02/07/2014 19:22, clipka nous fit lire :
> Am 02.07.2014 18:44, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> 
>> Yes. Compile, link, run.
>>
>> * make check : ok for the 3 (g++, icpc, clang++)
>>
>> Yet, it seems gcc (only) is too fast on benchmark. (4 seconds on 12
>> threads)
>>
>> Rendering benchmark gives the attached pictures (the icpc seems ok,
>> within usual time, but gcc is bogus and too fast, far too fast)
> 
> Did you do a clean build for the gcc version? Maybe one of the earlier
> builds left some crap behind.
> 
> If the bug persists even with a clean build, please open a new issue on
> GitHub, as we're no longer talking about build problems now.
> 
I rebuilt it two times. So the issue is on its way. :-)

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.07.2014 19:23, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

>> Can you please give me the output with ">>" corrected to "> >"? Thanks a
>> lot!
>>
> Here it is, attached.

Thanks. Next incarnation of feature/colour_model is ready for testing.

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.07.2014 19:25, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> Le 02/07/2014 19:22, clipka nous fit lire :
>> Am 02.07.2014 18:44, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>>
>>> Yes. Compile, link, run.
>>>
>>> * make check : ok for the 3 (g++, icpc, clang++)
>>>
>>> Yet, it seems gcc (only) is too fast on benchmark. (4 seconds on 12
>>> threads)
>>>
>>> Rendering benchmark gives the attached pictures (the icpc seems ok,
>>> within usual time, but gcc is bogus and too fast, far too fast)
>>
>> Did you do a clean build for the gcc version? Maybe one of the earlier
>> builds left some crap behind.
>>
>> If the bug persists even with a clean build, please open a new issue on
>> GitHub, as we're no longer talking about build problems now.
>>
> I rebuilt it two times. So the issue is on its way. :-)

 From what you wrote earlier, I take it that the biscuits scene renders 
fine.

Can you narrow down which feature causes the problems in the benchmark 
scene? Photons? Media? Radiosity?

It would also be helpful if you could figure out which version was the 
last one that compiled & rendered ok. (If the one after that still 
compiled ok, but rendered bogus, that would also be useful to know.)

Post a reply to this message

Le 02/07/2014 19:37, clipka nous fit lire :
> Am 02.07.2014 19:23, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> 
>>> Can you please give me the output with ">>" corrected to "> >"? Thanks a
>>> lot!
>>>
>> Here it is, attached.
> 
> Thanks. Next incarnation of feature/colour_model is ready for testing.
> 

It's getting bigger (here the clang version, as gcc is above 5M)

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'errorcolourcl3.txt' (673 KB)

Am 02.07.2014 19:58, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> Le 02/07/2014 19:37, clipka nous fit lire :
>> Am 02.07.2014 19:23, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>>
>>>> Can you please give me the output with ">>" corrected to "> >"? Thanks a
>>>> lot!
>>>>
>>> Here it is, attached.
>>
>> Thanks. Next incarnation of feature/colour_model is ready for testing.
>>
>
> It's getting bigger (here the clang version, as gcc is above 5M)

Future versions will be in experimental/colour_model from now on.

Post a reply to this message

Le 02/07/2014 20:49, clipka nous fit lire :
> Am 02.07.2014 19:58, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>> Le 02/07/2014 19:37, clipka nous fit lire :
>>> Am 02.07.2014 19:23, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>>>
>>>>> Can you please give me the output with ">>" corrected to "> >"?
>>>>> Thanks a
>>>>> lot!
>>>>>
>>>> Here it is, attached.
>>>
>>> Thanks. Next incarnation of feature/colour_model is ready for testing.
>>>
>>
>> It's getting bigger (here the clang version, as gcc is above 5M)
> 
> Future versions will be in experimental/colour_model from now on.
> 

Beware, gcc errors once un-bzip2-ed is 1 699 869 bytes long in
errorcolor.txt.

clang errors in the other file.

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'errorcolor.txt.bz2.zip' (13 KB) Download 'errorcolorcl.txt.bz2.zip' (6 KB)

Le 02/07/2014 19:51, clipka nous fit lire :
> Am 02.07.2014 19:25, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>> Le 02/07/2014 19:22, clipka nous fit lire :
>>> Am 02.07.2014 18:44, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>>>
>>>> Yes. Compile, link, run.
>>>>
>>>> * make check : ok for the 3 (g++, icpc, clang++)
>>>>
>>>> Yet, it seems gcc (only) is too fast on benchmark. (4 seconds on 12
>>>> threads)
>>>>
>>>> Rendering benchmark gives the attached pictures (the icpc seems ok,
>>>> within usual time, but gcc is bogus and too fast, far too fast)
>>>
>>> Did you do a clean build for the gcc version? Maybe one of the earlier
>>> builds left some crap behind.
>>>
>>> If the bug persists even with a clean build, please open a new issue on
>>> GitHub, as we're no longer talking about build problems now.
>>>
>> I rebuilt it two times. So the issue is on its way. :-)
> 
> From what you wrote earlier, I take it that the biscuits scene renders
> fine.
> 
> Can you narrow down which feature causes the problems in the benchmark
> scene? Photons? Media? Radiosity?
> 
> It would also be helpful if you could figure out which version was the
> last one that compiled & rendered ok. (If the one after that still
> compiled ok, but rendered bogus, that would also be useful to know.)
> 
It might be a long road.
I just went back to compile 3.7-stable with gcc and the image of
benchmark is even a bit different from the one at head with icpc.

There is a change in the clouds, basically the same place and
shape...but some holes...



-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'icpc.png' (448 KB) Download 'stable.png' (439 KB)

Preview of image 'icpc.png'

Preview of image 'stable.png'

Am 02.07.2014 22:01, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> It might be a long road.
> I just went back to compile 3.7-stable with gcc and the image of
> benchmark is even a bit different from the one at head with icpc.
>
> There is a change in the clouds, basically the same place and
> shape...but some holes...

That's a known side effect of commit 5a081e92, which fixes a bug in the 
way media used to be sampled (see also FS#318).

Post a reply to this message