On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: >>> > 25.10.2011 06:59, Matthew Brett kirjoitti: >>> >> res = np.longdouble(2)**64 >>> >> res-1 >>> >> 36893488147419103231.0 >>> > >>> > Can you check if long double works properly (not a given) in C on that >>> > platform: >>> > >>> > long double x; >>> > x = powl(2, 64); >>> > x -= 1; >>> > printf("%g %Lg\n", (double)x, x); >>> > >>> > or, in case the platform doesn't have powl: >>> > >>> > long double x; >>> > x = pow(2, 64); >>> > x -= 1; >>> > printf("%g %Lg\n", (double)x, x); >>> >>> Both the same as numpy: >>> >>> [mb312@jerry ~]$ gcc test.c >>> test.c: In function 'main': >>> test.c:5: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function >>> 'powl' >> >> I think implicit here means that that the arguments and the return values >> are treated as integers. Did you #include <math.h>? > > Ah - you've detected my severe ignorance of c. But with math.h, the > result is the same, > > #include <stdio.h> > #include <math.h> > > int main(int argc, char* argv) { > long double x; > x = pow(2, 64); > x -= 1; > printf("%g %Lg\n", (double)x, x); > }
By the way - if you want a login to this machine, let me know - it's always on and we're using it as a buildslave already. Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion