On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 3:15 AM Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> wrote:
> On 2020-07-14 09:48:18 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > There is no 2.1.0 beta4, just a beta1, so I don't know what was packaged
> in
> > February 2020. However the tests now fail with mpfr 4.1.0, seems to be
> > consistent across all architectures:
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > File "test/test_gmpy2_format.txt", line 157, in test_gmpy2_format.txt
> > Failed example:
> > c.__format__('e')
> > Differences (ndiff with -expected +actual):
> > - '3.3333333333333331e-01+5e+00j'
> > + '3.3333333333333331e-01+5.0000000000000000e+00j'
> > ? +++++++++++++++++
>
> FYI, the old MPFR behavior was regarded as a bug:
>
>
> https://gforge.inria.fr/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=21816&group_id=136&atid=619
>
> There were 2 reasonable interpretations of the description in the
> MPFR manual that did not leave the output partly unspecified, and
> for each of them, some outputs were incorrect. The one that has
> been chosen is the one that is closer to ISO C's %e and it does
> not change the numerical output value (the only difference is
> trailing zeros).
>
> --
> Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
>
Hi all,
Thanks for the bug report. Unfortunately I'm on a long hiking vacation with
no computer access until October and won't be able to look at this until
then. I welcome a non-maintainer upload if this needs a fix sooner.
I'm also CCing the upstream maintainer, who may have an opinion on that to
do here.
>
