On 05/17/2017 05:14 PM, Adam Majer wrote:
> [  209s] FAIL: schmidt csphase=1 deriv2 i=102 (-1.42436215874661529e-16 
> observed vs -1.42460074537287091e-16 expected) [9186711]
> [  209s] FAIL: schmidt csphase=1 deriv2 i=776 (1.85098628876862506e-16 
> observed vs 1.85127865747637551e-16 expected) [9187385]
> [  209s] FAIL: schmidt csphase=-1 deriv2 i=102 (-1.42436215874661529e-16 
> observed vs -1.42460074537287091e-16 expected) [15218755]
> [  209s] FAIL: schmidt csphase=-1 deriv2 i=776 (1.85098628876862506e-16 
> observed vs 1.85127865747637551e-16 expected) [15219429]
> [  209s] FAIL test (exit status: 1)
> [  209s] 
> [  209s] ./specfunc/test.log
> [  209s] FAIL: schmidt csphase=1 deriv2 i=102 (-1.42436215874661529e-16 
> observed vs -1.42460074537287091e-16 expected) [9186711]
> [  209s] FAIL: schmidt csphase=1 deriv2 i=776 (1.85098628876862506e-16 
> observed vs 1.85127865747637551e-16 expected) [9187385]
> [  209s] FAIL: schmidt csphase=-1 deriv2 i=102 (-1.42436215874661529e-16 
> observed vs -1.42460074537287091e-16 expected) [15218755]
> [  209s] FAIL: schmidt csphase=-1 deriv2 i=776 (1.85098628876862506e-16 
> observed vs 1.85127865747637551e-16 expected) [15219429]
> [  209s] FAIL test (exit status: 1)

Just an update on this, the errors are actually caused inside the
library not the test code. When the library is compiled with gcc
7.1.1+r247574 and the tests with 6.3.1+r246603, the failures are identical.

- Adam


Reply via email to