Dear Rencang,
Indeed the user needed only 23 iterations in his case.
See http://icl.cs.utk.edu/lapackforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=529
Regards,
Julie
On Nov 20, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Li, Rencang wrote:
Jim,
Each iteration operates within a shrinking interval which contains the
desired root, and the bisection is called whenever the iteration goes out of
the interval; so the bisection is the fall back (I just double checked). 200
is extreme, but I think it should never get that far, otherwise I would be
really worried. It would be helpful if someone could tell me what is the
exact number of iterations needed to fix that bug.
best, rencang
________________________________________
From: James Demmel [demmel@Domain.Removed]
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:00 AM
To: julie langou
Cc: lapack@Domain.Removed; lapackers; beboppers; Li, Rencang
Subject: Re: [Lapack] lapack bug in divideandconquer: is anybody listening
And sorry for also not getting to this sooner. When you say that the
convergence bug in divideandconquer was fixed by raising MAXIT
from 40 to 200 in xlaed4 (written by RenCang), then that makes me
think that some flavor of bisection would be a better fallback when
convergence fails (since the maximum number of iterations could be
more like the number of bits in the floating point word, so 32 or 64).
This is very intricate code (and asking the tobehired programmer to fix
it would likely require a very long learning curve) so let me ask RenCang
if he has any opinions.
Thanks,
Jim
julie langou wrote:
Evan,
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier.
We indeed corrected the bug you found, thank you for the patch. It is
released in LAPACK 3.3.0 (released this week).
See http://www.netlib.org/lapack/bugfixedin33.txt.
This bug was labelled bug0064.
If you could confirm that this issue is fixed, I will add a post on
the forum to let the users know.
Regards,
Julie
On Nov 18, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Evan Drumwright wrote:
Hi,
Please allow me to say how much I use and appreciate lapack. It
makes my research *much* easier and I would be stuck without it.
... which is why the following problem is so disconcerting. I am
experiencing a bug related to least squares solution via singular
value decomposition that at least one other person has experienced
and have gotten no response on the lapack user's forum from the
lapack maintainers.
Please see:
http://icl.cs.utk.edu/lapackforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=529
<http://icl.cs.utk.edu/lapackforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=529>
for a description of the bug, conditions to reproduce it, and a fix.
I would greatly appreciate it if this fix made its way into lapack!
Thanks and regards,
Evan Drumwright
_______________________________________________
Lapack mailing list
Lapack@Domain.Removed <mailto:Lapack@Domain.Removed>
http://lists.eecs.utk.edu/mailman/listinfo/lapack
**********************************************
Julie Langou; Research Associate in Computer Science
Innovative Computing Laboratory;
University of Tennessee from Denver, Colorado ;)
julie@Domain.Removed
<mailto:julie@Domain.Removed>; http://www.cs.utk.edu/~julie/
<http://www.cs.utk.edu/%7Ejulie/>

_______________________________________________
Lapack mailing list
Lapack@Domain.Removed
http://lists.eecs.utk.edu/mailman/listinfo/lapack
_______________________________________________
Lapack mailing list
Lapack@Domain.Removed
http://lists.eecs.utk.edu/mailman/listinfo/lapack
**********************************************
Julie Langou; Research Associate in Computer Science
Innovative Computing Laboratory;
University of Tennessee from Denver, Colorado ;)
julie@Domain.Removed; http://www.cs.utk.edu/~julie/
 next part 
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.eecs.utk.edu/mailman/private/lapack/attachments/20101122/4b4bd8f7/attachment0001.html
