DrDr runs (test-floating-point 1000) every push, which has returned only
'() for weeks. In your output, I don't see anything that would indicate
a problem with Racket. We can almost certainly pin the blame on your
processor or the standard libraries on your platform.
Even though you got errors
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> Today is not that day, but thanks for asking about this anyway. :)
>
On one machine with Ubuntu 12.10, I get no error, but on another machine
with Ubuntu 12.04, I get more than 14000 errors, many of them being +inf.0
and other numbers with big
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> DrDr runs (test-floating-point 1000) every push, which has returned only '()
> for weeks. In your output, I don't see anything that would indicate a
> problem with Racket. We can almost certainly pin the blame on your processor
> or the standar
On 02/07/2013 12:09 PM, Laurent wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Neil Toronto mailto:neil.toro...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Today is not that day, but thanks for asking about this anyway. :)
On one machine with Ubuntu 12.10, I get no error, but on another machine
with Ubuntu 12.04, I get mo
Back on list.
A lot of things point to general sloppiness in either the FPU or C
libraries, but I'd like more information just in case. Can you reply
with the values of the following expressions on the Athlon?
(flexpt -1001.0 -1.3407807929942596e+154)
(flexpt -1001.0 1.3407807929942596e+1
Tested it too and got an interesting result. On a 32bit linux its:
+nan.0
+nan.0
+nan.0
+nan.0
+nan.0
+nan.0
+nan.0
+nan.0
so, completely wrong. But on a 64bit Linux its correct if i use the 64bit
racket version. When i try the 32bit build i get the wrong results again.
I think you can blame it
Excellent test! I can think of two things that could cause the difference:
1. `flexpt' works around `pow' bugs on 64-bit Linux but not 32-bit
(Racket can fix this one)
2. 64-bit compile uses SSE instructions, and the SSE unit is better
than the FPU
There are probably more possibilitie
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Tobias Hammer wrote:
> Tested it too and got an interesting result. On a 32bit linux its:
>
> +nan.0
> +nan.0
> +nan.0
> +nan.0
> +nan.0
> +nan.0
> +nan.0
> +nan.0
>
That's what I get too.
And indeed my other machine was a 64bits Ubuntu and Racket.
Laurent
>
>
8 matches
Mail list logo