Raymond Toy wrote:
> Yay! Now there are a couple more issues with cmucl and rtest_gamma,
> where tests 264, 311, 313, and 319 fail. Looks like the accuracy is a
> bit off. Since all other Lisps (clisp, gcl, ecl), I will blame cmucl
> for this. I need to look into this issue a bit more to see what the
> actual problem is.
There's nothing obviously wrong. All the intermediate calculations are
appear to be quite close to each other. So I would say the required
precision is just a little too high.
I'll increase the threshold just a little.
Ray