On 17 May 2013 21:09, Johannes Pfau <nos...@example.com> wrote: > Am Tue, 14 May 2013 18:59:14 +0200 > schrieb "Iain Buclaw" <ibuc...@ubuntu.com>: > > > We now have 6 currently failing unittests. > > > > Current failing unittests: > > > > core.exception.AssertError@libphobos > /src/std/internal/math/errorfunction.d(222): > > unittest failure > > core.exception.AssertError@libphobos > /src/std/internal/math/gammafunction.d(367): > > unittest failure > > At least the second problem is caused by a difference in the exp inline > asm version used in dmd and the core.stdc.math.expl function used in > gdc. At first I though the iasm version might be more precise, > especially as we just alias expl(real) to exp(double). > > But a short test with mathematica suggests that the iasm version is > less precise (or even wrong?) and the numbers where determined with the > iasm version, so it seems this is 'not our bug'. I guess I'll have to > ask Don about this right? > > http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/5b33b8ad > > You will also find that be behaviour matches core.stdc.exp2l(LOG2E*x);
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/bb319763 -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
