[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-186?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12565234#action_12565234
]
Luc Maisonobe commented on MATH-186:
------------------------------------
Sorry Phil, I did not see your proposal before sending my last comment.
You are right, I will commit a new fix for this using exactly the same order
(2, 1, 3, 4) for both instances. This is a real solution, not a dirty trick
like mine.
Thanks
> test results depend on java version
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: MATH-186
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-186
> Project: Commons Math
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.2
> Environment: GNU/Linux (ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon), java 1.3: eclipse
> compiler, java 1.4: Blackdown-1.4.2-02, java 1.6: SUN 1.6.0_03-b05, AMD
> athlon XP2000+
> Reporter: Luc Maisonobe
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.2
>
>
> Running the tests with maven and changing the java version used by changing
> JAVA_HOME in the ~/.mavenrc file, I get different results.
> With the Eclipse compiler set to 1.3 compatibility and with blackdown jvm
> (1.4), the tests succed.
> With the Sun jvm (1.6), SummaryStatisticsAbstractTest.testEqualsAndHashCode
> (which is used both by SummaryStatisticsTest and
> SynchronizedSummaryStatisticsTest) fails.
> The error is related to geometric mean computation, which lead to slightly
> different results depending on the order of added elements. One instance
> returns 2.213363839400643 and the other returns 2.2133638394006434. Both
> results are consistent with IEEE754 arithmetic (they differ in the last two
> bits).
> Using Sun 1.6.0_03 jvm, the different values induce a test failure when
> SummaryStatistics.equals() method is called (it checks for exact equality).
> If this part of the test is commented out, another failure occurs when the
> SummaryStatistics.hashcode() method is called.
> Changing the equals method would be possible, but would be a change of
> semantics and would imply choosing some threshold which would never suit
> everybody needs. Changing the hashcode method simply does not seem realistic
> to me. So I would like to keep these methods as they are now. So the main
> conclusion would be that the test is too sensitive to jvm implementation
> (which are consistent with IEEE754 arithmetic in this case).
> I don't know what to do about this issue.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
