Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Model Crashes When OUTPUT_FORCE=TRUE #201

Closed
jhamman opened this issue Jan 22, 2015 · 3 comments · Fixed by #202
Closed

Model Crashes When OUTPUT_FORCE=TRUE #201

jhamman opened this issue Jan 22, 2015 · 3 comments · Fixed by #202
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@jhamman
Copy link
Member

jhamman commented Jan 22, 2015

When using OUTPUT_FORCE = TRUE, the model crashes with a segmentation fault: bad access.

Looking into this a bit deeper, this problem is coming in two locations where access to the veg_con structure, isn't protected by a if (!options.OUTPUT_FORCE) {} block. This occurs in two blocks of the initialize_atmos() code:

  1. Assign N_ELEM for veg-dependent forcings,
  2. Albedo, LAI, and Fractional Veg Cover.

I've already applied a fix locally but this is probably going to mean we release a hotfix/4.2.b tag.

@jhamman jhamman added the bug label Jan 22, 2015
@jhamman jhamman self-assigned this Jan 22, 2015
@jhamman jhamman added this to the 4.2.2 milestone Jan 22, 2015
@jhamman jhamman mentioned this issue Jan 22, 2015
@bartnijssen
Copy link
Member

@jhamman - I am confused about the tag naming. I thought bug fixes were identified by letters (4.2.a, 4.2.b) rather than numbers. I already didn't understand 4.2.1, but am concerned that this will cause confusion for the 4.X series. Even if going forward it'll be <major release>.<minor release>.<bug fix> then that would be easier from 5.0 going forward (i.e. 5.0.1 is a bug fix for 5.0). I'd prefer if we retag the 4.2.1 tag as 4.2.a and call this one 4.2.b, given that the 4.1.0 to 4.1.2` were essentially minor releases rather than bug fixes.

@jhamman
Copy link
Member Author

jhamman commented Jan 22, 2015

@bartnijssen - We stopped using the alphabetic bugfix identifier when we went to 4.2.0. That discussion was in issue #49. When the issues was close, I specifically addressed the convention that was used for the 4.2.1 release.

@bartnijssen
Copy link
Member

I know we had that discussion. After seeing it in practice, I really don't like it because it is misleading within the 4.X universe. For this reason I am making the decision to change it and adopt it from 5.X on instead.

On Jan 22, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Joe Hamman notifications@github.com wrote:

@bartnijssen - We stopped using the alphabetic bugfix identifier when we went to 4.2.0. That discussion was in issue #49. When the issues was close, I specifically addressed the convention that was used for the 4.2.1 release.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants