James Amundson ÐÉÛÅÔ:
> On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 08:34, Raymond Toy wrote:
>
>>I propose we do not do this. It merely hides the bugs for Clisp, but
>>does nothing for the other lisps. We need to find those places where
>>we didn't properly convert the numbers to double-floats.
>
>
> This deserves some discussion. We agree that we need to fix the
> precision problems in general.
>
> With Sam's patch:
> 1) The tests work as expected with clisp 2.29 and clisp 2.30.
> 2) clisp 2.30 prints a zillion messages about floating point contagion.
>
> Without Sam's patch:
> 1) The tests work as expected with clisp 2.29, but at least one
> additional failure is observed with 2.30.
>
> We will not fix all floating-point inconsistencies before 5.9.0. I am
> uncomfortable releasing 5.9.0 with avoidable errors in the current
> version of clisp. As a compromise, we could add a bug to the bug tracker
> to remind us that the clisp floating-point setting is a temporary hack.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --Jim
>
I'd like to clarify a point concerning clisp 2.30.
This clisp release definitely has some floating point bug
(whence numerous "contagion" warnings and extra test failure).
This bug (or bugs?) is fixed
in post 2.30 clisp CVS at least of October 12 or later. So
with current clisp CVS all maxima tests are OK and we see only
two or three extra "floating point contagion" warnings
during make check. With latest clmacs.lisp patch these
warnings also disappear.
--
Vadim V. Zhytnikov
<vvzhy@mail.ru>
<vvzhy@netorn.ru>
<vvzhy@yandex.ru>
<vvzhy@td.lpi.ac.ru>