[Tommy turns off optimization, and all is well] >> Do either of these blow up too? >> >> >>> 4 * 0.60653065971263342 >> >>> 4.0 * math.exp(-0.5) > yup. OK. Does the first one blow up? Does the second one blow up? Or do both blow up? Fourth question: does >> 4.0 * 0.60653065971263342 blow up? > ... > And the next step is... ? Stop making me pull your teeth <wink>. I'm trying to narrow down where it's screwing up. At worst, then, you can disable optimization only for that particular file, and create a tiny bug case to send off to SGI World Headquarters so they fix this someday. At best, perhaps a tiny bit of code rearrangement will unstick your compiler (I'm good at guessing what might work in that respect, but need to narrow it down to a single function within Python first), and I can check that in for 2.1.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4