[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

20011030: remap2.pgm with mcidas version 7.7 and 7.8 (cont.)

>From: "Craddock, Mary Ellen" <address@hidden>
>Organization: TASC
>Keywords: 200110221732.f9MHW7119481 McIDAS-X 7.8

Mary Ellen,

>Thanks for your email. Let me try to answer your questions.

re: both versions of remap2 work on machines other than OSF/1?
>       
>       No, you're correct. But we weren't sure until I recompiled with the
>latest SSEC version on our IBM and ran remap2.pgm.

OK.

re: what happens when you remap2 a single banded image
>
>       We still get a 5 banded erroneous image...the number of bands is a
>hardwire in our version.

So, that is not an angle we want to follow.

re: what does the compile output look like (any warnings, etc.)

>       The compile and link output is all normal...we do not get the error
>commands that you do.

This is probably due to my using a different compiler (not the error; the
warning about the error).

>Do you still want a copy of the output?

If it doesn't include _any_ warnings, then no.

re: remap2 may need significant modifications for 64-bit machines
>
>        Do you still think the above could be the problem?

Unfortunately, yes.  The reason I say this is that _none_ of the library
calls being made from remap2.pgm (at least the ones you listed in your
original email) have _any_ Unidata modifications in them.  Also, the
really _big_ porting concern when going to 64-bit machines like OSF/1
is word length mismatches.

Tom

>From address@hidden Tue Nov  6 06:54:08 2001
>To: "'Craddock, Mary Ellen'" <address@hidden>,
>   "'address@hidden'" <address@hidden>
>Cc: "'address@hidden'" <address@hidden>,
>   "'address@hidden'" <address@hidden>,
>   "'address@hidden'"
>        <address@hidden>
>Subject: RE: remap2.pgm with mcidas version 7.7 and 7.8

I am a bit late with this, but FYI  Unidata McIDAS 7.8 is also the
flavor and version of the sw we are running on our Linux box.  
 
Martha Tonkin