On 08/ 6/10 10:04 AM, Raymond Toy wrote: > On 8/6/10 1:59 AM, Robert Dodier wrote: >> On 8/5/10, Dr. David Kirkby<david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >> >>> (%i1) asinh(1.0); >>> (%o1) .8813735870195429 >> Appears to be a consequence of the way ECL formats >> floating point numbers. I can produce an example on Linux >> so it's not specific to Solaris. e.g. >> >> (format nil "~vf" 17 (/ 1d0 1.39239992382181823812d0)) >> => ".7181844690534236" > Nice example. It's not even specific to ecl. CMUCL and clisp print the > same thing. > > The difference between ecl on Solaris/sparc and Solaris/x86 could very > well be the floating-point units or the routines used to compute cl:asinh. > > (format nil "~vf" 17 (asinh 1d0)) > > produces a leading 0 on Solaris with cmucl, but there's no leading zero > on Solaris clisp. The number value of (asinh 1d0) is slightly different > too. > > Ray
It's worth noting however that the failure to print the leading zero is seen on a common CPU (Intel Xeon), albient with a less common operating system (Solaris). The strange thing, when Solaris is run on the SPARC processor, the output is similar to Intel systems on AMD/Intel CPUs. Small differences are to be expected when computing these things, especially on SPARC processors, so I'm not concerned about the exact value of the last digit - that's pretty irrelevant. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Ecls-list mailing list Ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
