[SciPy-user] run=2339 errors=0 failures=3 on ibex
Xavier Gnata
xavier.gnata@gmail....
Thu Oct 30 15:12:57 CDT 2008
David Cournapeau wrote:
> Xavier Gnata wrote:
>
>> Ok so there is a simple fix which is fully correct:
>>
>> -assert_array_almost_equal(x, y, decimal=6, err_msg='', verbose=True)
>>
>> +assert_array_almost_equal(x, y, decimal=5, err_msg='', verbose=True)
>>
>>
>
> The obvious question is does that fix the issue or does it only hide the
> problem ? 5 decimals is relatively poor, but float32 can only be
> expected to have 7 decimals anyway. And assuming the failure is caused
> by different BLAS/LAPACK implementations, it is not rare to see
> relatively significant differences between two given BLAS/LAPACK (even
> same version but different compilers; I have never seen a BLAS/LAPACK
> passing all the netlib LAPACK tests, for example: g77 and gfortran break
> them at different places, for example).
>
>
Ok my fault. It was not a good idea to "fix" it that way.
So first I can try to implement the same computation in C/whatever using
float32 and see how many correct digits we get.
If it "breaks" on some systems, IMHO it means that the check is too
stringent.
> Did you use g77 before intrepid (intrepid finally use gfortran as the
> default ABI for fortran) ?
>
>
Full gfortran. No g77.
So what should be the way forward? Should we involve gfortran/lapack
guys asking for how many digits we should get?
Should we move from an error to a warning (because the result may only
be not as accurate as expected).
As you know, I really would like to see scipy compiling and running the
test suite smoothly :)
It is very important to "sell" scipy to people (people I know at least ;)).
Cheers,
Xavier
> cheers,
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-user mailing list
> SciPy-user@scipy.org
> http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
>
More information about the SciPy-user
mailing list