Re: [racket-dev] Floating-Point Compliance Testing

2013-02-07 Thread Neil Toronto
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

Re: [racket-dev] Floating-Point Compliance Testing

2013-02-07 Thread Laurent
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

Re: [racket-dev] Floating-Point Compliance Testing

2013-02-07 Thread Pierpaolo Bernardi
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

Re: [racket-dev] Floating-Point Compliance Testing

2013-02-07 Thread Neil Toronto
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

Re: [racket-dev] Floating-Point Compliance Testing

2013-02-08 Thread Neil Toronto
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

Re: [racket-dev] Floating-Point Compliance Testing

2013-02-08 Thread Tobias Hammer
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

Re: [racket-dev] Floating-Point Compliance Testing

2013-02-08 Thread Neil Toronto
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

Re: [racket-dev] Floating-Point Compliance Testing

2013-02-09 Thread Laurent
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 > >