From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28059 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2009 11:50:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 28020 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2009 11:50:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net (HELO relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net) (212.159.7.36) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:50:05 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMHAM/rhErUnw4U/2dsb2JhbACOSMQchBkFgU0 Received: from pih-relay08.plus.net ([212.159.14.20]) by relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 14 Aug 2009 12:50:02 +0100 Received: from [212.159.60.66] (helo=[192.168.1.11]) by pih-relay08.plus.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1MbvIH-0005VE-UZ for gsl-discuss@sourceware.org; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:50:02 +0100 Message-ID: <4A854F64.9050006@gladman.plus.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:50:00 -0000 From: Brian Gladman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "gsl-discuss@sourceware.org" Subject: GSL test release 1.12.90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Plusnet-Relay: f06bf2f217fad2cf68da9002f6cc90eb Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q3/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 I have compiled GSL 1.12.90 and the tests on Vista x64 Ultimate using Visual Studio 2008 Professional (a few minor changes are needed to do this). I had two compile errors: 1. I found declarations after executable statements in test_funcs.c (spring_f) 2. In gsl_const_cgs.h, the MSVC preprocessor does not recognise the #warning directive. After removing these compilation errors, all tests except one pass in both 32 and 64 bit versions of the library. The test that fails is testrandist, which gives this output in 64-bit mode: GSL_IEEE_MODE="double-precision,round-to-nearest,mask-all" FAIL: test gsl_ran_exponential [0,1] (0 observed vs 0.393469 expected) [7] and this in 32-bit mode: GSL_IEEE_MODE="double-precision,round-to-nearest,mask-all" FAIL: test gsl_ran_exponential [0,1] (0 observed vs 0.393469 expected) [7] FAIL: test gsl_ran_discrete1 [-0.5,0.5] (0.33122 observed vs 0.59 expected) [9] FAIL: test gsl_ran_discrete1 [0.5,1.5] (0.33343 observed vs 0.4 expected) [10] FAIL: test gsl_ran_discrete1 [1.5,3.5] (0.33164 observed vs 0.01 expected) [11] I have not yet had time to look into this failure any further. My thanks to all developers for their first class work on GSL. Brian Gladman __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4334 (20090814) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com