Le 19/09/2018 à 11:46, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
Le 19/09/2018 à 11:24, Stéphane Mottelet a écrit :
Le 19/09/2018 à 11:17, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
The current implementation is not incoherent.
However, there are still bugs, and when trying to solve them, the
question of incoherence raises. See e.g :
--> int8(-128)/int8(-1)
ans =
-128
There is no bug here. The division yields 128, that then is wrapped,
what yields -128, since in Scilab after the int8 127, 127+1 goes to
-128 instead of ceiling to 127 like in Octave:
>> int8(-128)/int8(-1)
ans = 127
OK
At first sight, Octave's result does not look more consistent than
Scilab's one.
But following its own ceiling/flooring rules, yet it is consistent.
What is puzzling is that Scilab implements a *mix* of rules comming from
different software. I am wondering about the true reason:
Scilab:
--> int8(-128)/int8(0)
ans =
-128
--> int8(-128)/int8(-1)
ans =
-128
Matlab:
>> int8(-128)/int8(0)
ans =
int8
-128
>> int8(-128)/int8(-1)
ans =
int8
127
With both possible rules, wrapping or saturating ones, results may
appear as inconsistent. But for this example, it is not the case.
Samuel
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/1/c3RlcGhhbmUubW90dGVsZXRAdXRjLmZy/lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
--
Stéphane Mottelet
Ingénieur de recherche
EA 4297 Transformations Intégrées de la Matière Renouvelable
Département Génie des Procédés Industriels
Sorbonne Universités - Université de Technologie de Compiègne
CS 60319, 60203 Compiègne cedex
Tel : +33(0)344234688
http://www.utc.fr/~mottelet
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
