[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave
From: |
Judd Storrs |
Subject: |
Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:20:07 -0400 |
Here's an updated patch and c99 test code for the bug that was
reported. I removed the pre-determined threshold and instead check for
overflow of den but only for the real component, the same code works
for singles and long double. I think I got all the "l"s and "f"s where
they need to be... If you agree there are no problems, I think it's
ready to submit to glibc. I only tested the double version for
accuracy.
Error magn Real part Imag part Both
----------- ---------- ---------- ---------
>= 1 eps 12990 71680 6208
>= 2 eps 0 4 0
>= 3 eps 0 0 0
>= 4 eps 0 0 0
>= 5 eps 0 0 0
>= 6 eps 0 0 0
>= 7 eps 0 0 0
>= 8 eps 0 0 0
>= 9 eps 0 0 0
>=10 eps 0 0 0
Grid size: 1025 x 1025
Top Left corner: -8.000000 + +8.000000 i
Bottom Right corner: +8.000000 + -8.000000 i
Time to evaluate grid: 131.600000 (sec) [10000 loops]
Internal inconsistencies: 0
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Jaroslav Hajek <address@hidden> wrote:
> Wow. I guess that if the rest of glibc's math received the same level
> of attention, I would rely on it for anything up to a flight to Mars
> :)
This was probably obvious to you guys but my problem was it had never
occurred to me to recompile glibc--when you guys would say fix it in
glibc, for some silly reason I thought that ultimately meant to wait
for a new vendor release (obviously stupid in retrospect).
My new philosophy is that glibc is part of octave. Then I don't have
to be grouchy.
--judd
glibc-ctanh-4.diff
Description: Text Data
test-c99.c
Description: Text Data
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, (continued)
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Judd Storrs, 2010/04/19
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/04/20
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Judd Storrs, 2010/04/20
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/04/20
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Judd Storrs, 2010/04/20
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Judd Storrs, 2010/04/20
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Thomas D. Dean, 2010/04/20
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Judd Storrs, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave,
Judd Storrs <=
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Judd Storrs, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Thomas D. Dean, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Thomas D. Dean, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Ozzy Lash, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Judd Storrs, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/04/22
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Thomas D. Dean, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Thomas D. Dean, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Judd Storrs, 2010/04/21
- Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave, Thomas Weber, 2010/04/19