* GSL test release 1.12.90
@ 2009-08-14 11:50 Brian Gladman
2009-08-17 10:08 ` Brian Gough
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Brian Gladman @ 2009-08-14 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gsl-discuss
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: GSL test release 1.12.90
2009-08-14 11:50 GSL test release 1.12.90 Brian Gladman
@ 2009-08-17 10:08 ` Brian Gough
2009-08-18 11:04 ` Brian Gladman
2009-09-09 22:47 ` GNU Scientific Library 1.13 released - report maxgacode
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Brian Gough @ 2009-08-17 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Gladman; +Cc: gsl-discuss
At Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:49:56 +0100,
Brian Gladman wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the testing.
> 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]
>
Thanks - it looks like the header file <gsl/gsl_math.h> is missing in
randist/exponential.c for gsl_log1p.
--
Brian Gough
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: GSL test release 1.12.90
2009-08-17 10:08 ` Brian Gough
@ 2009-08-18 11:04 ` Brian Gladman
2009-09-09 22:47 ` GNU Scientific Library 1.13 released - report maxgacode
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Brian Gladman @ 2009-08-18 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Gough; +Cc: gsl-discuss
Brian Gough wrote:
> At Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:49:56 +0100,
> Brian Gladman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Thanks for the testing.
>
>> 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]
>>
>
> Thanks - it looks like the header file <gsl/gsl_math.h> is missing in
> randist/exponential.c for gsl_log1p.
Yes, that fixed it. Thanks Brian.
Brian Gladman
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4344 (20090818) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* GNU Scientific Library 1.13 released - report
2009-08-17 10:08 ` Brian Gough
2009-08-18 11:04 ` Brian Gladman
@ 2009-09-09 22:47 ` maxgacode
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: maxgacode @ 2009-09-09 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gsl-discuss
Release 1.13 compilation
Platform Windows XP SP3 + MSys 1.0.11 + MinGW (Gcc 4.4.0 latest
binutils,winapi,make,runtime)
Using all the following compilation options
1) CFLAGS="-mfpmath=sse -msse2 -O2 -fexceptions"
2) CFLAGS="-mfpmath=sse -msse2 -fexceptions"
3) CFLAGS="-fexceptions"
4) CFLAGS="-O2 -fexceptions"
the library compiled (static library)and passed the make check.
Especially the option 4) is a pleasant
surprise. I was never able to get a successful make check using OOB
source code with -O2 -fexceptions.
Neither integration nor monte routines need hacks (like disabling
optimization) to pass the tests
Hope this helps.
Max
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-09 22:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-08-14 11:50 GSL test release 1.12.90 Brian Gladman
2009-08-17 10:08 ` Brian Gough
2009-08-18 11:04 ` Brian Gladman
2009-09-09 22:47 ` GNU Scientific Library 1.13 released - report maxgacode
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).