26.10.2011 10:07, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> I guess from your answer that such a warning would be complicated to
>> implement, and if that's the case, I can imagine it would be low
>> priority.
>
> I assume the problem is more that it
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> I guess from your answer that such a warning would be complicated to
>> implement, and if that's the case, I can imagine it would be low
>> priority.
>
> I assume the problem
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> I guess from your answer that such a warning would be complicated to
> implement, and if that's the case, I can imagine it would be low
> priority.
I assume the problem is more that it would be a weirdo check that
becomes a maintenance burde
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> That reminds me of the old joke about the Irishman giving directions -
> "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here".
Sounds about accurate `1
>
>> I would rather spend some time on implementing/integrating portable
>> quad precision in s
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>>> 25.10.2011 20:29, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
>>> [clip]
In [7]: (res-1) / 2**32
Out[7]: 858993
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>> 25.10.2011 20:29, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
>> [clip]
>>> In [7]: (res-1) / 2**32
>>> Out[7]: 8589934591.98
>>>
>>> In [8]: np.float((res-1) / 2**32)
>>> Out[8]: 42949
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 25.10.2011 20:29, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> In [7]: (res-1) / 2**32
>> Out[7]: 8589934591.98
>>
>> In [8]: np.float((res-1) / 2**32)
>> Out[8]: 4294967296.0
>
> Looks like a bug in the C library installed on the mach
Hi,
On 25 Oct 2011, at 21:14, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 25.10.2011 20:29, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>> In [7]: (res-1) / 2**32
>> Out[7]: 8589934591.98
>>
>> In [8]: np.float((res-1) / 2**32)
>> Out[8]: 4294967296.0
>
> Looks like a bug in the C library installed on the machine, t
25.10.2011 20:29, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
[clip]
> In [7]: (res-1) / 2**32
> Out[7]: 8589934591.98
>
> In [8]: np.float((res-1) / 2**32)
> Out[8]: 4294967296.0
Looks like a bug in the C library installed on the machine, then.
It's either in wontfix territory for us, or in the "cast to do
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Derek Homeier
wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2011, at 20:05, Matthew Brett wrote:
>
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
'po
On 25 Oct 2011, at 20:05, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> 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 th
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> 25.10.2011 19:45, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
> [clip]
>>> 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
25.10.2011 19:45, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
[clip]
>> 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
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>>> > 25.10.2011 06:59, Matt
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
>> > 25.10.2011 06:59, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
>> >> res = np.longdouble(2)**64
>> >> res-1
>> >>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pauli Virtanen 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
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pauli Virtanen 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 = po
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just ran into this on a PPC machine:
>>
>> In [1]: import numpy as np
>>
>> In [2]: np.__version__
>> Out[2]: '2.0.0.dev-4daf949'
>>
>> In [3]: res = np.l
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just ran into this on a PPC machine:
>
> In [1]: import numpy as np
>
> In [2]: np.__version__
> Out[2]: '2.0.0.dev-4daf949'
>
> In [3]: res = np.longdouble(2)**64
>
> In [4]: res
> Out[4]: 18446744073709551616.0
>
> In [5]: 2**64
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,
Hi,
I just ran into this on a PPC machine:
In [1]: import numpy as np
In [2]: np.__version__
Out[2]: '2.0.0.dev-4daf949'
In [3]: res = np.longdouble(2)**64
In [4]: res
Out[4]: 18446744073709551616.0
In [5]: 2**64
Out[5]: 18446744073709551616L
In [6]: res-1
Out[6]: 36893488147419103231.0
Sam
21 matches
Mail list logo
