A fix has been committed, but there's still a problem on loongson with
libm updated:
[...]
This is definitely a problem in gdtoa. The values are always computed
the same, but do not get printed correctly, as shown by this modified
test program. Both lines should print 0.606531 for the
A fix has been committed, but there's still a problem on loongson with
libm updated:
$ ls -l /usr/lib/libm.so.*
-r--r--r-- 1 root bin 926033 Feb 12 12:17 /usr/lib/libm.so.9.0
$ cc -o expl expl.c -O2 -pipe -lm
$ for in in 1 2 3 4 5 6 ; do ./expl ; done
theta == 1, pr == -9.15569e-2474,
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Donovan Watteau wrote:
David Coppa wrote:
Take the following reduced test-case, adapted from what R's code
does:
---8---
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
#include math.h
int main(void) {
double theta = 1;
long double lambda, pr, pr2;
On 2/12/14, Donovan Watteau tso...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Donovan Watteau wrote:
David Coppa wrote:
Take the following reduced test-case, adapted from what R's code
does:
---8---
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
#include math.h
int main(void) {
double
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:35:02 -0700 (MST)
From: Martynas Venckus marty...@cvs.openbsd.org
Here's a diff that sticks a bit closer to the original code. It's
equivalent to your diff, and admittedly purely a matter of taste which
version to prefer.
I prefer my version better. It's
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:03 PM, David Coppa dco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Mark Kettenis mark.kette...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:07:58 -0800
From: Martynas Venckus marty...@venck.us
Yup.Does this diff fix it for you?
Here's a diff that sticks a
Here's a diff that sticks a bit closer to the original code. It's
equivalent to your diff, and admittedly purely a matter of taste which
version to prefer.
I prefer my version better. It's not '93 anymore and compilers are
able to convert 0.0L and -1.0L precisely, otherwise we have a huge
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Martynas Venckus
marty...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
Here's a diff that sticks a bit closer to the original code. It's
equivalent to your diff, and admittedly purely a matter of taste which
version to prefer.
I prefer my version better. It's not '93 anymore and
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Martynas Venckus marty...@venck.us wrote:
Yup.Does this diff fix it for you?
Yeah! It works.
And R-3's testsuite is also happy now.
Thanks a lot! And thanks to Daniel too...
ok dcoppa@ to commit it, obviously
Ciao,
David
On 2/6/14, Daniel Dickman
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:07:58 -0800
From: Martynas Venckus marty...@venck.us
Yup.Does this diff fix it for you?
Here's a diff that sticks a bit closer to the original code. It's
equivalent to your diff, and admittedly purely a matter of taste which
version to prefer.
Index: s_floorl.c
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Mark Kettenis mark.kette...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:07:58 -0800
From: Martynas Venckus marty...@venck.us
Yup.Does this diff fix it for you?
Here's a diff that sticks a bit closer to the original code. It's
equivalent to your diff, and
David Coppa wrote:
Take the following reduced test-case, adapted from what R's code
does:
---8---
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
#include math.h
int main(void) {
double theta = 1;
long double lambda, pr, pr2;
lambda = (0.5*theta);
pr = exp(-lambda);
I think I recently ran into a similar issue but I suspect the root cause might
be the same. I think the floorl function is wrong for numbers slightly larger
than -1 to numbers slightly below 0. In this range floorl returns -0 instead of
-1.
On Feb 5, 2014, at 3:57 AM, David Coppa
Yup.Does this diff fix it for you?
On 2/6/14, Daniel Dickman didick...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I recently ran into a similar issue but I suspect the root cause
might be the same. I think the floorl function is wrong for numbers slightly
larger than -1 to numbers slightly below 0. In this
Hi!
I hit this problem while working on updating math/R from version
2.15.3 to the latest version (3.0.2).
It started happening since upstream switched from double functions
to C99 long double functions (expl, fabsl, ...), during the R-3
development cycle.
Take the following reduced test-case,
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 01:57:33 -0700
From: David Coppa dco...@openbsd.org
Hi!
I hit this problem while working on updating math/R from version
2.15.3 to the latest version (3.0.2).
It started happening since upstream switched from double functions
to C99 long double functions (expl,
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 01:57:33 -0700
From: David Coppa dco...@openbsd.org
Hi!
I hit this problem while working on updating math/R from version
2.15.3 to the latest version (3.0.2).
It started happening since upstream switched from double functions
to C99 long double functions (expl,
17 matches
Mail list logo
