On 5/8/2011 12:48 PM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
I made the changes you suggest. While I was previously getting
-1.16e-16 and -1.03e-16 depending presence of an "extra"
class member, I now get 1.11e-16 (sic not -). But it is now independent of
the extra class member, which is excellent. Hopeful
--
Michael D. Berger
m.d.ber...@ieee.org
http://www.rosemike.net/
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Tim Prince
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 11:38
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: numerical re
Quoting "Michael D. Berger" :
How does the extra precision lead to the variable result?
Also, is there a way to prevent it? It is a pain in regression testing.
Please read:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
On 5/8/2011 8:25 AM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Robert Dewar [mailto:de...@adacore.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 11:13
To: Michael D. Berger
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: numerical results differ after irrelevant code change
[...]
This kind of result is
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Dewar [mailto:de...@adacore.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 11:13
> To: Michael D. Berger
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: numerical results differ after irrelevant code change
>
[...]
>
> This kind of result is qui
On 5/8/2011 10:54 AM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
On a CentOS box with:
# uname -a
Linux xx 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5 #1 SMP Wed Jan 5
17:53:09 EST 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
# gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-48)
and using:
Template Numerical Toolkit (TNT).
as well as num
