I have tested the Planck likelihood using the code provided as part of the plc, and these do return the predicted values. I have also made the patch suggested here.[davidparkinson@polaris CosmoMC]$ mpirun np 1 ./cosmomc_debug test.ini
Number of MPI processes: 1
file_root:test
Random seeds: 28259, 25208 rand_inst: 1
Using clik with likelihood file
./data/clik/hi_l/plik/plik_dx11dr2_HM_v18_TT.clik

clik version 6dc2a8cf3965
smica
Checking likelihood './data/clik/hi_l/plik/plik_dx11dr2_HM_v18_TT.clik' on test data. got 380.979 expected 380.979 (diff 8.68545e09)

TT from l=0 to l= 2508
Clik will run with the following nuisance parameters:
A_cib_217
cib_index
xi_sz_cib
A_sz
ps_A_100_100
ps_A_143_143
ps_A_143_217
ps_A_217_217
ksz_norm
gal545_A_100
gal545_A_143
gal545_A_143_217
gal545_A_217
calib_100T
calib_217T
A_planck
Using clik with likelihood file
./data/clik/low_l/bflike/lowl_SMW_70_dx11d_2014_10_03_v5c_Ap.clik
BFLike Ntemp = 2876
BFLike Nq = 1407
BFLike Nu = 1407
BFLike Nside = 16
BFLike Nwrite = 32393560
cls file appears to have 5+ columns
assuming it is a CAMB file with l, TT, EE, BB, TE
info = 0

clik version 6dc2a8cf3965
bflike_smw
Checking likelihood './data/clik/low_l/bflike/lowl_SMW_70_dx11d_2014_10_03_v5c_Ap.clik' on test data. got 1e+30 expected 5247.87 (diff 1e+30)

TT from l=0 to l= 29
EE from l=0 to l= 29
BB from l=0 to l= 29
TE from l=0 to l= 29
Clik will run with the following nuisance parameters:
A_planck
Using clik with likelihood file
./data/clik/low_l/commander/commander_rc2_v1.1_l2_29_B.clik

clik version 6dc2a8cf3965
gibbs_gauss 1478fb2d28fa49aca8ae677dbdc3600a
Checking likelihood './data/clik/low_l/commander/commander_rc2_v1.1_l2_29_B.clik' on test data. got 7.32304 expected 7.32304 (diff 2.52096e10)

TT from l=0 to l= 29
Clik will run with the following nuisance parameters:
A_planck
Doing nonlinear Pk: F
Doing CMB lensing: T
Doing nonlinear lensing: T
TT lmax = 2508
EE lmax = 2500
ET lmax = 2500
BB lmax = 2500
PP lmax = 2500
lmax_computed_cl = 2508
Computing tensors: F
max_eta_k = 14000.00
transfer kmax = 5.000000
adding parameters for: lowl_SMW_70_dx11d_2014_10_03_v5c_Ap
adding parameters for: smica_g30_ftl_full_pp
adding parameters for: commander_rc2_v1.1_l2_29_B
adding parameters for: plik_dx11dr2_HM_v18_TT
Fast divided into 1 blocks
21 parameters ( 7 slow ( 0 semislow), 14 fast ( 0 semifast))
Time for theory: 5.66975
Time for lowl_SMW_70_dx11d_2014_10_03_v5c_Ap: 1.270103454589844E002
loglike chisq
0.000 0.000 CMB: lensing = smica_g30_ftl_full_pp
0.000 0.000 CMB: plik = plik_dx11dr2_HM_v18_TT
0.000 0.000 CMB: lowTEB = lowl_SMW_70_dx11d_2014_10_03_v5c_Ap
0.000 0.000 CMB: lowl = commander_rc2_v1.1_l2_29_B
Test likelihoods done, parameter point rejected (logZero or outside prior)
Total time: 45 ( 0.01246 hours )
[CosmoMC] Failure to compute Planck likelihood in test case

 Posts: 22
 Joined: January 19 2005
 Affiliation: KASI
 Contact:
[CosmoMC] Failure to compute Planck likelihood in test case
I can compile both the Planck likelihood and cosmomc source sucessfully, but when running the provided CosmoMC test file, it does not return the predicted value for the likelihood

 Posts: 22
 Joined: January 19 2005
 Affiliation: KASI
 Contact:
[CosmoMC] Failure to compute Planck likelihood in test case
I did manage to solve this. Cython was not being properly install by the waf tool that came with the Planck likelihood, as the resource location they had specified for cython in the wscript was out of date. They suggested that it should be downloaded from http://cython.org/release/Cython−0.14.1.tar.gz, but this link is dead, and cython is now available from https://pypi.python.org/pypi/Cython/.
Someone please ask the Planck team to update wscript accordingly.
Someone please ask the Planck team to update wscript accordingly.