On 4 February 2016 at 12:29, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 2/3/2016 11:41 PM, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >> Actually, I found the reverse! One of the inline assembly version paths >> are >> correct up to double precision, the platform agnostic path I ported does >> not >> have this problem, but fails the tests. >> >> Adjusting them will *expose* the buggy algorithm for what it really is. >> >> > I don't understand. How can reducing precision of the test expose bugs? > The literal being used to compare the result was wrong (by 12 mantissa bits) in the first place.
