Forum > Windows
New apps based on code revision 2.2 'Noo? No, Ni!' have been released!
Simon:
No,
just trying to lower the amount of variables.
Lord Asmodeus:
--- Quote from: KarVi on 21 Feb 2007, 03:28:43 pm ---Well that explains it :)
IMHO its something that needs fixing, since its has become very apparent in the newest version.
Don't really know how it could be done though, as i understand the reasoning behind raising the priority.
Running the test at just normal priority would remove the problem on most systems I think, but would also give the risk of wrong measurements.
Its a trade-off: Does one want absolutely accurate measurements, or an app. that doesn't interfere with normal operation.
I vote for the last, but I will let it be up to you guys to decide.
--- End quote ---
I agree. If I understand it correctly, doing what you suggest will slow the crunching of a WU from time to time, it does not seem a big deal. I just had a serie of around 20 WU crunshed very quickly (5-6 seconds each) and it made my computer unusable for as long as a minute.
Josef W. Segur:
--- Quote from: Ronon Dex on 20 Feb 2007, 09:56:25 pm ---Now I have with the "normal/good" WUs invalid results like with the "overflow"- WUs too... :(
If I understand you right, then it will be better to have an application what make not so correct results... but then I have better chances for valid results (Credits)?
Where I can get them? ;)
(If I remember right, in the time I used Crunch3rs apps I didn't had invalid results...
Or I didn't find them? ;)
Maybe, what he had done in other way?)
--- End quote ---
I found my coding mistake a few hours ago and apologize for any anxiety it has caused. I had seen some indication of the problem before release but didn't expect it to have much impact, so that bad judgement compounded the original mistake.
Joe
Urs Echternacht:
--- Quote from: Josef W. Segur on 21 Feb 2007, 10:45:52 pm ---I found my coding mistake a few hours ago and apologize for any anxiety it has caused. I had seen some indication of the problem before release but didn't expect it to have much impact, so that bad judgement compounded the original mistake.
Joe
--- End quote ---
Don't worry, at least you found your mistake.
Here are some more error reports attached occurring to my dual P3 yesterday. (0xc0000005) Hopefully that flaw can be found someday.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Josef W. Segur:
--- Quote from: Urs Echternacht on 22 Feb 2007, 01:20:17 am ---...
Here are some more error reports attached occurring to my dual P3 yesterday. (0xc0000005) Hopefully that flaw can be found someday.
--- End quote ---
That's a puzzle. For these 3, the callstack indicates it's happening while the app is putting its identifying information in stderr.txt, specifically the line in red:
fprintf( stderr, "Optimized SETI@Home Enhanced application\n\n" );
fprintf( stderr, "%9s: Ben Herndon, Josef Segur, Alex Kan, Simon Zadra\n", "Optimizers" );
fprintf( stderr, "%9s: %s %s %s-bit based on seti V%d.%2d 'Ni!'\n", "Version"
,_OS_, _fft_simd_, _bits_
, gmajor_version, gminor_version );
fprintf( stderr, "%9s: (R-%s|%s)\n", "Rev", _release_, _compOps_ );
How it got to trying to execute non-existent code at 0x0055B8E3 I don't know.
The other one you posted is even more a puzzle, the callstack indicated it was executing a tail section which should only be used if the WU has a num_samples not evenly divisible by the fft length.
[Edit: The above is wrong, I managed to look at the wrong disassembly listing.]
Joe
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version