jmfbahciv wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-01-26 9:03 , jmfbahciv wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-01-25 8:43 , jmfbahciv wrote:

There have been a few bugs of this flavor on many systems in the
past. I vaguely recall one where the work around was to
split up the calculation statement. I don't remember the platform
nor the language nor the decade when it happened.

That's pretty common debugging in any day and age.

This is the first I've heard of the technique in a long time.
However, I live in a rarified atmosphere where this kind of stuff
is SOP.

I'd do the same assuming I'd made a mistake in a statement. Once
working correctly, I'd leave well enough alone and move on.
Deadlines.

The other joy was moving FORTRAN from one platform to another and
then validating the code on the new platform ... tedious at best.

Unless the platforms' arithmetic are not consistent. Those are
really [NOT] "fun"....unless you have a really nice data set.
Then it could be fun.

Usually we had data that we could test with, this (in one case)
included a huge roll of punched paper tape. Fortunately I didn't do
that one!

I did not like handling paper tape, oiled nor fanfold. ;-)

The same was true of a few tape readers grin.

/BAH

J. Clarke wrote:
jmfbahciv wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-01-26 9:03 , jmfbahciv wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-01-25 8:43 , jmfbahciv wrote:

There have been a few bugs of this flavor on many systems in the
past. I vaguely recall one where the work around was to
split up the calculation statement. I don't remember the platform
nor the language nor the decade when it happened.
That's pretty common debugging in any day and age.
This is the first I've heard of the technique in a long time.
However, I live in a rarified atmosphere where this kind of stuff
is SOP.
I'd do the same assuming I'd made a mistake in a statement. Once
working correctly, I'd leave well enough alone and move on.
Deadlines.

The other joy was moving FORTRAN from one platform to another and
then validating the code on the new platform ... tedious at best.
Unless the platforms' arithmetic are not consistent. Those are
really [NOT] "fun"....unless you have a really nice data set.
Then it could be fun.
Usually we had data that we could test with, this (in one case)
included a huge roll of punched paper tape. Fortunately I didn't do
that one!

I did not like handling paper tape, oiled nor fanfold. ;-)

The same was true of a few tape readers grin.

ROTFL. Some. The readers I used rarely ate tape as long
as you didn't obstruct the flow of tape on the other side
of the reader.

I never worked with Mylar tape. We dup'ed papertape
for our distribution media. It might have been nice
to have shipped diags on Mylar (paper)tape; I might
not be as deaf as I am now from dup'ping paper tapes
on the Burpee punch.

/BAH

jmfbahciv wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jmfbahciv wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-01-26 9:03 , jmfbahciv wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-01-25 8:43 , jmfbahciv wrote:

There have been a few bugs of this flavor on many systems in the
past. I vaguely recall one where the work around was to
split up the calculation statement. I don't remember the platform
nor the language nor the decade when it happened.
That's pretty common debugging in any day and age.
This is the first I've heard of the technique in a long time.
However, I live in a rarified atmosphere where this kind of stuff
is SOP.
I'd do the same assuming I'd made a mistake in a statement. Once
working correctly, I'd leave well enough alone and move on.
Deadlines.

The other joy was moving FORTRAN from one platform to another and
then validating the code on the new platform ... tedious at best.
Unless the platforms' arithmetic are not consistent. Those are
really [NOT] "fun"....unless you have a really nice data set.
Then it could be fun.
Usually we had data that we could test with, this (in one case)
included a huge roll of punched paper tape. Fortunately I didn't do
that one!
I did not like handling paper tape, oiled nor fanfold. ;-)

The same was true of a few tape readers grin.

ROTFL. Some. The readers I used rarely ate tape as long
as you didn't obstruct the flow of tape on the other side
of the reader.

I never worked with Mylar tape. We dup'ed papertape
for our distribution media. It might have been nice
to have shipped diags on Mylar (paper)tape; I might
not be as deaf as I am now from dup'ping paper tapes
on the Burpee punch.

I worked on a few of the high speed optical tape readers.... never did
see one that could not be made to eat tape by either a clueless FE or
operator.


There were all sorts of mylar tapes. Odd, you'd think some of the
metalized ones would have less problem with stiction than paper.

The Mylar tape did tend to clog more in the high speed punches
mainframes used, and when they clogged the punch pins, they REALLY
clogged up the pins.

Lon wrote:
jmfbahciv wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jmfbahciv wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-01-26 9:03 , jmfbahciv wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-01-25 8:43 , jmfbahciv wrote:

There have been a few bugs of this flavor on many systems in the
past. I vaguely recall one where the work around was to
split up the calculation statement. I don't remember the platform
nor the language nor the decade when it happened.
That's pretty common debugging in any day and age.
This is the first I've heard of the technique in a long time.
However, I live in a rarified atmosphere where this kind of stuff
is SOP.
I'd do the same assuming I'd made a mistake in a statement. Once
working correctly, I'd leave well enough alone and move on.
Deadlines.

The other joy was moving FORTRAN from one platform to another and
then validating the code on the new platform ... tedious at best.
Unless the platforms' arithmetic are not consistent. Those are
really [NOT] "fun"....unless you have a really nice data set.
Then it could be fun.
Usually we had data that we could test with, this (in one case)
included a huge roll of punched paper tape. Fortunately I didn't do
that one!
I did not like handling paper tape, oiled nor fanfold. ;-)

The same was true of a few tape readers grin.

ROTFL. Some. The readers I used rarely ate tape as long
as you didn't obstruct the flow of tape on the other side
of the reader.

I never worked with Mylar tape. We dup'ed papertape
for our distribution media. It might have been nice
to have shipped diags on Mylar (paper)tape; I might
not be as deaf as I am now from dup'ping paper tapes
on the Burpee punch.

I worked on a few of the high speed optical tape readers.... never did
see one that could not be made to eat tape by either a clueless FE or
operator.

Oh, well, there are always ways to drop people's bits.



There were all sorts of mylar tapes. Odd, you'd think some of the
metalized ones would have less problem with stiction than paper.

Yea.


The Mylar tape did tend to clog more in the high speed punches
mainframes used, and when they clogged the punch pins, they REALLY
clogged up the pins.

I did not know that. Perhaps that's why we never used Mylar and
stayed with papertape. It was easy to punch out another fanfold
papertape.

Perhaps I was blessed by not having to deal Mylar and didn't know
I was blessed. Papertape did produce mild swears.

/BAH


/BHA