Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Math] Accuracy test failures on QNX 6.4.0
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-18 14:48:31

Niklas Angare wrote:
>> I've discovered that that the results are the same with GNU
>> libstdc++ as with Dinkumware. But I belive they both bring in the
>> math functions from
>>> Anyhow, I'm stumped by what the issue could be now, so can you let
>>> me have the output of the program below?
>> Here it is:

Thanks, I believe it's a bug in the elliptic integral code, I'll check in a
fix shortly and we'll see what happens to the results, in the mean time can
you let me have the result of running the program below (*after* you've done
an SVN update, as I've had to update the debugging/tracing code) so I can
see what some of the other failures are doing?

Thanks, John.

#include <boost/math/special_functions.hpp>
#include <boost/math/concepts/real_concept.hpp>

int main()
  std::cout << std::setprecision(30);
  boost::math::concepts::real_concept r = boost::math::expint<long
double>(22, 0.5L);
  std::cout << r << std::endl;
  r = boost::math::beta<long double>(150.599945068359375L, 306722.0L,
  std::cout << r << std::endl;
  r =
  std::cout << r << std::endl;
  r = boost::math::cyl_neumann<long double>(0, 1000);
  std::cout << r << std::endl;

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at