Hi, On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 10:19:25PM +0000, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > >I didn't look at the details of the patch for #768090, but the bug log > >suggests that there are remaining failures. Is that still the case with this > >patch? > > Assuming you mean > >The remaining test failures are: > >-cospi/sinpi/tanpi, powr/pown/pow, tgamma are less accurate than the > >OpenCL spec requires (at least the first group explicitly use the > >fast-but-inaccurate path, 2e-5 instead of 1e-8 typical relative error > >but 10-20x faster; one reason 0.9 is "faster" is that it has sin/cos/tan > >do the same by default). > >-sub_bufffer_check sometimes crashes. > yes, it's the same patch so has the same failures: I don't claim > this is perfect, just the best we can reasonably do within the > freeze rules. > > In current upstream (1.0), the crash is gone and a non-default > "strict conformance" mode is added where cospi/sinpi/tanpi meet the > accuracy standard, but powr/pown/pow and tgamma still fail.
OK. > >you can use a version like 1:0.8+dfsg-1 in unstable if you don't like > >0.9.3~really.0.8+dfsg-1 > Please don't do that: I'd rather have a temporary ~really than a > (permanent) epoch. An epoch isn't that bad, but some people don't like it. As I said, both 1:0.8+dfsg-1 and 0.9.3~really.0.8+dfsg-1 are fine for me. Just ping this bug when the package is in unstable. Cheers, Ivo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
