Here is the fix! (was Re: LFS build method flawed?)
bdubbs at swbell.net
Thu Jul 11 17:34:04 PDT 2002
Nicholas Dille wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 10:02:59AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>I don't think thats a problem for most of us. :)
>i disagree. if you've implemented a mathematical algorithm and provided
>a test which is meant to check the correctness of the impementation (in
>this case the resulting binary from the implementation) any error is
>i think you are underestimating the problems which might arise from
>error propagation. an error of 10^-6 might unexpectedly grow into by
>several magnitudes in a disadvantageous context.
>so, in my opinion we should not fix the test but rather that which
>causes the implementation to fail!
>(assuming that the results which glibc's calculation is tested against
I am not underestimating the propagation problems. If you are using
those functions, the problem is serious. The key word here is 'IF'. I
can't think of any mainstream application that would use the function
that failed. Specialized users who need that type of function can and
do check them (as in the glibc check).
Besides, I'm fairly confident that the error is in hardware, not glibc.
If the test passes on Intel wouldn't you draw the same conclusion?
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev