Le 16/03/2011 08:55, Robert Bradshaw a écrit :
We can, for example, call gsl rather than libc. Or we can special case
this processor and/or set of values.
Whatever process is used to compute the value, the fact is that the
result has *no* rounding error on all other platforms. This platform
produces inferior results, and I'd call it a bug. Let's fix/work
around it, not mask it.
Sorry to tell it so bluntly, but what you say doesn't make that much
sense : the result isn't inferior. Sage is asked a result with a "long
double" precision, and it gives back a result with a "long double"
precision.
The expectation that "long double" is *strictly* better better than
"double" is wrong.
See also my other mail where I give the results of other computations
and suggest looking at how correct the result is depending on its type.
Snark on #sage-devel
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
