GSL on Hitachi SR8000

[Reinhold Bader]

Here it is (sorry for that slip):



failure of range for i=1: 0.002518891687657430 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=2: 0.005037783375314860 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=3: 0.007556675062972290 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=4:  0.01007556675062972 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=5:  0.01259445843828715 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=6:  0.01511335012594458 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=7:  0.01763224181360202 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=8:  0.02015113350125945 2.653385558828668e-315
failure of range for i=9:  0.02267002518891688 2.653385558828668e-315
... etc up to i=34

etc.

Jochen Küpper wrote:
 > On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:45:04 +0200 Reinhold Bader wrote:
 >
 > Reinhold> printf("failure of range for i=%d: %20.16f %20.16f\n",i,h->range[i],abs(h->range[i] - hh->range[i]));
 >
 > Reinhold> and receive failures for h->range. Oddly enough, the absolute differences are
 > Reinhold> 0:
 > Reinhold> failure of range for i=1:   0.0025188916876574   0.0000000000000000
 > Reinhold> failure of range for i=2:   0.0050377833753149   0.0000000000000000
 > Reinhold> failure of range for i=3:   0.0075566750629723   0.0000000000000000
 > Reinhold> failure of range for i=4:   0.0100755667506297   0.0000000000000000
 > Reinhold> failure of range for i=5:   0.0125944584382872   0.0000000000000000
 >
 > Reinhold> perhaps the machine differentiates 0.0 and -0.0? Generally, comparing
 > Reinhold> floats etc. to equality is generally not a good idea (and you do
 > Reinhold> read in %lg's in gsl_histogram_fscanf)...
 >
 > Hmm, what's the output if you use %g instead of %f?
 >
 > Greetings,
 > Jochen