bug-gsl
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug-gsl] rng make check fail


From: Scott Wales
Subject: [Bug-gsl] rng make check fail
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:04:34 +1000

I'm receiving the following errors running make check on the rng directory

make  test
gcc-4.2 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I..    -ftree-vectorize -O3 -c test.c
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc-4.2 -ftree-vectorize - O3 -o test test.o libgslrng.la ../ieee-utils/libgslieeeutils.la ../ err/libgslerr.la ../test/libgsltest.la ../sys/libgslsys.la ../utils/ libutils.la -lm libtool: link: gcc-4.2 -ftree-vectorize -O3 -o test test.o ./.libs/ libgslrng.a ../ieee-utils/.libs/libgslieeeutils.a ../err/.libs/ libgslerr.a ../test/.libs/libgsltest.a ../sys/.libs/libgslsys.a ../ utils/.libs/libutils.a -lm
make  check-TESTS
FAIL: random-bsd, 10000 steps (397125625 observed vs 1457025928 expected) [53] FAIL: random128-bsd, 10000 steps (1271336880 observed vs 1457025928 expected) [57] FAIL: random256-bsd, 10000 steps (1172729514 observed vs 1216357476 expected) [58] FAIL: random-libc5, 10000 steps (504160670 observed vs 428084942 expected) [59] FAIL: random128-libc5, 10000 steps (1842747415 observed vs 428084942 expected) [63] FAIL: random256-libc5, 10000 steps (634779212 observed vs 116367984 expected) [64] FAIL: random128-bsd, ratio of int to double (0.883325 observed vs 0.826815 expected) [90] FAIL: random256-bsd, ratio of int to double (0.270813 observed vs 0.383827 expected) [93] FAIL: random256-libc5, ratio of int to double (0.743319 observed vs 12.8179 expected) [95] FAIL: random-bsd, ratio of int to double (1.44413 observed vs 1.51911 expected) [105]
sum=1.36358e-06, sigma=0.00211245
FAIL: random256-bsd, sum test within acceptable sigma (observed 0.0021 sigma) [473]
FAIL: test
===================
1 of 1 tests failed
===================

I'm using CFLAGS="-ftree-vectorize -O3" and running OSX 10.6, gcc-4.2.1.

The test succeeds if -ftree-vectorize is removed when building.

Cheers,

Scott Wales




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]