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

v0.5.4 eigs() doesn't work in apple M1 for GEVP.with shift-inverse #155

Open
shookware opened this issue May 24, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Comments

@shookware
Copy link

when I solve a general eigenvalue problem with Arpack package, I found that it doesn't work when its version is 0.5.4. When i switch the version to 0.5.3, it is done well.

Error info in 0.5.4:
n=201
┌ Error: XYAUPD_Exception: Maximum number of iterations taken. All possible eigenvalues of OP has been found.
│ IPARAM(5) returns the number of wanted converged Ritz values.
│ info = 1
└ @ Arpack /Users/shookware/.julia/packages/Arpack/FCvNd/src/libarpack.jl:47

Stacktrace:
[1] aupd_wrapper(T::Type, matvecA!::Arpack.var"#17#27"{Matrix{ComplexF64}}, matvecB::Arpack.var"#13#23", solveSI::Arpack.var"#18#28", n::Int64, sym::Bool, cmplx::Bool, bmat::String, nev::Int64, ncv::Int64, which::String, tol::Float64, maxiter::Int64, mode::Int64, v0::Vector{ComplexF64}, check::Int64)
@ Arpack ~/.julia/packages/Arpack/FCvNd/src/libarpack.jl:141
[2] _eigs(A::Matrix{ComplexF64}, B::Matrix{ComplexF64}; nev::Int64, ncv::Int64, which::Symbol, tol::Float64, maxiter::Int64, sigma::Float64, v0::Vector{ComplexF64}, ritzvec::Bool, explicittransform::Symbol, check::Int64)
@ Arpack ~/.julia/packages/Arpack/FCvNd/src/Arpack.jl:240
[3] _eigs
@ ~/.julia/packages/Arpack/FCvNd/src/Arpack.jl:75 [inlined]
[4] eigs
@ ~/.julia/packages/Arpack/FCvNd/src/Arpack.jl:53 [inlined]
[5] #eigs#9
@ ~/.julia/packages/Arpack/FCvNd/src/Arpack.jl:63 [inlined]
[6] top-level scope
@ ~/文案工作/教育教学/讲义资料/stability_lecturer/stability_programming_lecture/lesson3_Incompressible_OS_equations.ipynb:6

Code:
lesson3_Incompressible_OS_equations.ipynb.zip

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Collaborator

Same as #154 perhaps? And maybe due to #120?

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants