|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: Hubert Holin (Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-09 04:01:54
Somewhere in the E.U., le 09/06/2005
Bonjour
In article <989aceac0506070535775585f3_at_[hidden]>,
Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> These test failures all seem to stem from problems with std::exp (long
> double) and perhaps some other math functions using long double on
> gcc. Does this smell like a gcc bug, or is there something wrong with
> the tests?
>
> gcc-4_0-darwin:
> http://tinyurl.com/8tts6
> http://tinyurl.com/atzbx
>
> gcc-windows:
> http://tinyurl.com/dwmdk
> http://tinyurl.com/9to33
>
> gcc-3_4_3-sunos:
> http://tinyurl.com/8zvpz
> http://tinyurl.com/bx6mt
For gcc-4_0-darwin and gcc-3_4_3-sunos at least, I strongly
suspect a libstdc++ bug (or severe QOI issue), w.r.t. "long double" on
64 bits architectures. Jonathan Wakely is investigating that possibility
(I sent him a much shorter test case demonstrating the problem). If
necessary, I will turn off the tests for "long double" before the 1.33
release.
For gcc-windows things are not as clear, as apparently this is a
32 bits architecture and not a 64 bits one. There is the possibility
that "long double" may actually be (slightly) bigger than "double" on
that platform (I seem to remember things along that line when I worked
on NT a great while back), and that we are falling into the same kind of
trouble.
Merci
Hubert
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
--------------------------------------------------------
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the
sender, delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain
or redistribute it. Click here for important additional terms relating to
this e-mail. http://www.ml.com/email_terms/
--------------------------------------------------------