Hi! Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> writes:
> It's the same check, but using ATLAS as the algebra back-end instead of > BLAS. I wasn’t aware of these differences. I just found the paragraph in the R Installation and Administration guide that talks about the accuracy of different implementations causing different solutions. I think in my case the data used for the test might be the real culprit because it is a kind of a corner case. Some implementation detail seems to cause a significant difference in the result (6% off for one coefficient). Other tests using different data sets do not fail, so I will look into this. > It seems that you are checking exact output values in your tests, and > changing the library changes the computed coefficients. This is generally a > bad idea, precisely as this issue demonstrates. Checking ranges or numbers > with some tolerance is much better, but then you cannot rely on .Rout. I already reduced the number of digits to print because I had this issue before. I think the computed coefficients changed from one R release to the next in the past some time ago... Maybe I should switch to something like stopif(all.equal(...) instead. Thanks again! Regards, Stefan ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
