On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Pauli Virtanen<p...@iki.fi> wrote: > I think we tried this already (my c99-umath-funcs branch had > TestC99 special case tests that were in Numpy trunk for a while). > > The outcome was that the current implementations of the complex > functions don't have essentially any special-case behavior that's > consistent across different platforms. And our buildbot coverage > is not large enough, so users will report failing tests even if > buildbots are OK... After repeating this cycle a couple of times, > IIRC only some special cases of log survived :)
I think the situation is better now, because we have the infrastructure to deal with this: we have portable nan, inf, negative zero and corresponding macros (I have just added copysign recently to the trunk, which was the last missing for every case AFAIK). Preliminary tests on both windows (with MS compilers) and linux indicate that many special cases are already dealt with correctly. I don't have tests for branch cuts yet, though, only signed 0, nan and inf handling. > Of course, if you meant to merge the tests first to the new > implementations and that to trunk, this sounds better. The idea was to merge all the tests, but set them as knownfailure, and enable them everytime I merge a new function into the trunk. This way, one can easily check the differences between successive revisions ? But that's not a crucial point. I can keep everything in one branch if you think it is better. David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
