On 01/04/2010 02:10, Gregory Wright wrote:
On 3/31/10 11:44 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:54:26PM -0400, Gregory Wright wrote:
Now they seem to both be correct. The key value is at the bottom of
column 8. This should be 2.386e-1
(which means that 23.86 percent of the
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:54:26PM -0400, Gregory Wright wrote:
Now they seem to both be correct. The key value is at the bottom of
column 8. This should be 2.386e-1
(which means that 23.86 percent of the protons in the early universe end
up as helium). So it
seems that this is a
On 3/31/10 11:44 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 02:54:26PM -0400, Gregory Wright wrote:
Now they seem to both be correct. The key value is at the bottom of
column 8. This should be 2.386e-1
(which means that 23.86 percent of the protons in the early universe end
up as
Hi,
I have a program (attached) that is relatively simple, but numerically
intensive.
It computes the abundances of the chemical elements generated by big-bang
nucleosynthesis. At the moment, the executable takes no command line
arguments,
it simply runs the standard model.
When I build
[I forgot to reply-all first time. Sorry.]
Perhaps it's not a problem with profiling itself, but rather with
rewrite rules for hmatrix or some other package. If they fire they can
alter semantics of computations, and thus change numerical properties
of code.
Best regards
Krzysztof Skrzętnicki
Hi,
On 3/22/10 10:22 AM, Gregory Wright wrote:
Hi,
I have a program (attached) that is relatively simple, but numerically
intensive.
It computes the abundances of the chemical elements generated by big-bang
nucleosynthesis. At the moment, the executable takes no command line
arguments,
I got some results from GHC 6.12.1, Linux i686. In short: both
profiling and normal run produce the same final results, but there are
some differences. I don't know if they are valid or not.
./nsyn | tail
1080826.599 0.01 8.483e-157.612e-17.753e-52.517e-7
1.566e-52.387e-1
Hi Krzysztof,
On 3/22/10 2:42 PM, Krzysztof Skrzętnicki wrote:
I got some results from GHC 6.12.1, Linux i686. In short: both
profiling and normal run produce the same final results, but there are
some differences. I don't know if they are valid or not.
./nsyn | tail
1080826.599 0.01
On OS X 10.5.9 with ghc 6.10.4 with no profiling I get :
1315638.396 0.01 3.671e-157.612e-17.753e-52.516e-7
1.566e-52.387e-1 3.089e-14 6.337e-11 5.791e-11 5.665e-16
1384093.315 0.01 2.952e-157.612e-17.753e-52.515e-7
1.566e-52.387e-1
