From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gsl-discuss-return-5223-listarch-gsl-discuss=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 22651 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2008 18:51:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 22639 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jan 2008 18:51:22 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (HELO fk-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.128.187)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:46:45 +0000
Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 26so7112881fkx.8
        for <gsl-discuss@sourceware.org>; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:46:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.78.118.5 with SMTP id q5mr17226671huc.10.1199299569761;
        Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.178.21? ( [87.189.44.235])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e8sm44196602muf.8.2008.01.02.10.46.07
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:46:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <477BDBEE.2000603@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:51:00 -0000
From: Frank Reininghaus <frank78ac@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jochen_K=FCpper?= <jochen@fhi-berlin.mpg.de>
CC: gsl-discuss@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Bug report and fix for adaptive step size control in ODE solving
References: <4772D239.9070206@googlemail.com> <0E55B479-624E-4F88-B511-CDFF93435D9E@fhi-berlin.mpg.de>
In-Reply-To: <0E55B479-624E-4F88-B511-CDFF93435D9E@fhi-berlin.mpg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gsl-discuss.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gsl-discuss-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gsl-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:gsl-discuss@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-q1/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2

Hi Jochen,

Jochen Küpper wrote:
> However, why don't you test what you really describe your comment? 
> This would look like the following (untested):
>
>   h0 = GSL_MAX_DBL(GSL_DBL_MIN, (t0 != t0+h0) ? h0 : GSL_DBL_EPSILON*t0);
Actually, I had been thinking of something like that first, but then I 
was afraid that an optimising compiler might transform 't0 != t0+h0' 
into '0 != h0', making the patch useless for the 'h0 < 
GSL_DBL_EPSILON*t0' problem.

Regards,
Frank