On 2010-Jan-01 11:56:02 +, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
>But if FreeBSD's libm for the 387 chips is based on Sun's library for a SPARC
>processor one needs to be cautious before making that assumption. If FreeBSD's
>implementation was based on Sun's library for the x86 processor, then I'd say
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2009-Dec-31 17:50:05 -0200, Gonzalo Tornaria
> wrote:
>> gcc is actually inlining exp(1.0) to its correct value. The exp() from
>> the sun library is incorrect. Try this program instead:
>
> FreeBSD libm is derived from Sun's libm and also gets exp(1) 1ULP high
> on amd6
Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
> wrote:
>> Em, This is very odd. exp(1) gives a different result on SPARC if you build
>> with gcc or Sun Studio. GCC is correct, and Sun Studio is wrong. Yet Sage on
>> 't2' was build with gcc, not Sun Studio.
>
> gcc
On 2009-Dec-31 17:50:05 -0200, Gonzalo Tornaria
wrote:
>gcc is actually inlining exp(1.0) to its correct value. The exp() from
>the sun library is incorrect. Try this program instead:
FreeBSD libm is derived from Sun's libm and also gets exp(1) 1ULP high
on amd64 (on i386, exp() is written using
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> Em, This is very odd. exp(1) gives a different result on SPARC if you build
> with gcc or Sun Studio. GCC is correct, and Sun Studio is wrong. Yet Sage on
> 't2' was build with gcc, not Sun Studio.
gcc is actually inlining exp(1.0) to i
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> **
>>> File "/rootpool2/local/kirkby/sage-4.3/devel/sage/sage/symbolic/
>>> pynac.pyx", line
>>> 1276:
>
On Dec 30, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> **
>> File "/rootpool2/local/kirkby/sage-4.3/devel/sage/sage/symbolic/
>> pynac.pyx", line
>> 1276:
>> sage: py_exp(float(1
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
> **
> File "/rootpool2/local/kirkby/sage-4.3/devel/sage/sage/symbolic/
> pynac.pyx", line
> 1276:
> sage: py_exp(float(1))
> Expected:
> 2.7182818284590451
> Got:
On Dec 30, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-Dec-29 23:29:42 +, "Dr. David Kirkby" >>> wrote:
There are a few failures, but these couple just came up, and look
rather odd, as this is o
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
>> On 2009-Dec-29 23:29:42 +, "Dr. David Kirkby" >> wrote:
>>> There are a few failures, but these couple just came up, and look
>>> rather odd, as this is only an error in the last decimal place, and
>>> so will be su
On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2009-Dec-29 23:29:42 +, "Dr. David Kirkby" > wrote:
>> There are a few failures, but these couple just came up, and look
>> rather odd, as this is only an error in the last decimal place, and
>> so will be subject to rounding errors with d
On 2009-Dec-29 23:29:42 +, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
>There are a few failures, but these couple just came up, and look
>rather odd, as this is only an error in the last decimal place, and
>so will be subject to rounding errors with different floating point
>processors. They do not really see
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> I started to run the Sage 4.3 tests suite on 't2' some time back (It has been
> going about 36 hours now. Perhaps it might finish before 4.3.1 comes out.)
>
> There are a few failures, but these couple just came up, and look rather odd,
>
I started to run the Sage 4.3 tests suite on 't2' some time back (It has been
going about 36 hours now. Perhaps it might finish before 4.3.1 comes out.)
There are a few failures, but these couple just came up, and look rather odd,
as
this is only an error in the last decimal place, and so will
14 matches
Mail list logo
