On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 7:57:11 AM UTC+8, Jonathan Bober wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dr. David Kirkby <> wrote: > >> On 02/ 5/12 10:16 PM, Jonathan Bober wrote: >> >> Never mind all that: the gsl implementation is not very good at all, >>> whereas the libc implementation on my machine seems quite good. Old >>> (libc): >>> >> >> If that's the case, why not report the fact to the appropiate mailing >> list - bug-gsl at gnu.org? >> >> dave >> > > Well, I just sort of assume that the gsl developers have some idea how > accurate their gamma function is and perhaps they consider their > implementation just fine. It might not be a bug --- it might just be a > design decision. Instead of "not very good" I should have said "not as > accurate as eglibc". >
still, might be worth trying (unlike with (e)glibc).... Dima -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
