help-octave
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave


From: Thomas Weber
Subject: Re: Same .m file: different results with different versions of Octave
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:33:56 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 02:26:31PM -0400, Judd Storrs wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 1:22 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> I agree that in a purely ideal world you would fix the compilers and
> support libraries. However, it seems that problems are widespread and
> even when fixes are made to the standard libraries they disappear. For
> example, the bug in glibc's implementation of tanh (the debian bug
> report leading to the glibc bug report attributes the test code to
> you, btw) was apparently fixed in 2005. It's not fixed now 2010.

What makes you think it's not fixed? On my system, the code works as
expected. Did you compile the upstream libc yourself? Have you verified
that you are actually running GNU libc and not eglibc? 

> Either it wasn't actually fixed or it has now regressed or perhaps
> we're still waiting for a released version with the fix five years
> later.

Or maybe you aren't even running that library code at all?

> What's so special about the C/C++ standard libraries numerics when
> we've got a high-quality free numerics library? Would anyone be
> shocked if GSL was a dependency of octave? Is there some problem with
> GSL that makes its use unacceptable or why we should avoid it? From
> octave's point of view, if the goal is to punt the problem why not
> punt it to numerical people? Let the GSL maintainers worry about
> whether they want to use gnulib to port the numerics.

So, what if there's a bug in GSL[1]? Do we switch the libraries again?

This is a pointless exercise, running in circles. There's a bug, fix it
at the source.

[1] I happen to have stumbled across a pretty obvious bug in GSL. With
the attitude expressed in some postings here, that bug would still be in
the library.

        Thomas


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]