comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » strange behaviour of bytscl by large arrays
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: strange behaviour of bytscl by large arrays [message #80097 is a reply to message #79963] Fri, 04 May 2012 22:27 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Craig Markwardt is currently offline  Craig Markwardt
Messages: 1869
Registered: November 1996
Senior Member
On Friday, May 4, 2012 11:46:39 AM UTC-4, Chris Torrence wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've added a fix for this in IDL Next (not 8.2). If you ask for values larger than 16777215, then it switches to using a 64-bit integer for the counting, and then casts those values to floats. You will still get duplicate numbers and discontinuities (impossible to fix that), but at least it won't get stuck on a single number. I did the same thing for double, in case you have any desire to allocate 9007199254740992 elements (that's 8 petabytes).
>
> I also added a START keyword to all of the *INDGEN routines and MAKE_ARRAY, that allows you to specify a starting index. I needed this for testing purposes so I didn't have to keep creating huge arrays, and it seemed like a generally useful feature. It's much faster to specify START than to add an offset to the indgen after you've created it.

Cool, that's pretty useful.
Craig
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: Time series.
Next Topic: IDL crashes after Mac OSX 10.7.3 upgrade from 10.7.2

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 19:43:13 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00462 seconds