This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: GSL on Hitachi SR8000
Here it is (sorry for that slip):
failure of range for i=1: 0.002518891687657430 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=2: 0.005037783375314860 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=3: 0.007556675062972290 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=4: 0.01007556675062972 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=5: 0.01259445843828715 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=6: 0.01511335012594458 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=7: 0.01763224181360202 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=8: 0.02015113350125945 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=9: 0.02267002518891688 2.653385558828668e-315
... etc up to i=34
etc.
Jochen Küpper wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:45:04 +0200 Reinhold Bader wrote:
>
> Reinhold> printf("failure of range for i=%d: %20.16f %20.16f\n",i,h->range[i],abs(h->range[i] - hh->range[i]));
>
> Reinhold> and receive failures for h->range. Oddly enough, the absolute differences are
> Reinhold> 0:
> Reinhold> failure of range for i=1: 0.0025188916876574 0.0000000000000000
> Reinhold> failure of range for i=2: 0.0050377833753149 0.0000000000000000
> Reinhold> failure of range for i=3: 0.0075566750629723 0.0000000000000000
> Reinhold> failure of range for i=4: 0.0100755667506297 0.0000000000000000
> Reinhold> failure of range for i=5: 0.0125944584382872 0.0000000000000000
>
> Reinhold> perhaps the machine differentiates 0.0 and -0.0? Generally, comparing
> Reinhold> floats etc. to equality is generally not a good idea (and you do
> Reinhold> read in %lg's in gsl_histogram_fscanf)...
>
> Hmm, what's the output if you use %g instead of %f?
>
> Greetings,
> Jochen