On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 22:20 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko
li...@onerussian.com wrote:
could anyone on 32bit system with fresh numpy (1.7.1) test
On 1 May 2013 08:49, Yaroslav Halchenko li...@onerussian.com wrote:
Thanks everyone for the feedback.
Is it worth me starting a bisection to catch where it was introduced?
Is it a bug, or just typical fp rounding issues? Do we know which answer is
correct?
-n
On Wed, 01 May 2013, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Thanks everyone for the feedback.
Is it worth me starting a bisection to catch where it was introduced?
Is it a bug, or just typical fp rounding issues? Do we know which answer
is correct?
to ignorant me, even without considering
01.05.2013 16:01, Yaroslav Halchenko kirjoitti:
[clip]
to ignorant me, even without considering 'correctness', it is just
a typical regression -- results changed from one release to another (and
not to the better side).
To me this seems to be a consequence of performing additions in a
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
01.05.2013 16:01, Yaroslav Halchenko kirjoitti:
[clip]
to ignorant me, even without considering 'correctness', it is just
a typical regression -- results changed from one release to another (and
not to the better side).
To me
On Wed, 01 May 2013, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
not sure there is anything to fix here. Third-party code relying on a
certain outcome of rounding error is likely incorrect anyway.
Yeah, seems to just be the standard floating point indeterminism.
Using Matthew's numbers and pure Python floats:
HI,
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko li...@onerussian.com wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
not sure there is anything to fix here. Third-party code relying on a
certain outcome of rounding error is likely incorrect anyway.
Yeah, seems to just be the
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
HI,
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko li...@onerussian.com
wrote:
3. they are identical on other architectures (e.g. amd64)
To me that is surprising. I would have guessed that the order is the
just for completeness... I haven't yet double checked if I have done it
correctly but here is the bisected commit:
aed9925a9d5fe9a407d0ca2c65cb577116c4d0f1 is the first bad commit
commit aed9925a9d5fe9a407d0ca2c65cb577116c4d0f1
Author: Mark Wiebe mwi...@enthought.com
Date: Tue Aug 2 13:34:13
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
HI,
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko li...@onerussian.com
wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
not sure there is anything to fix here. Third-party code relying on a
certain
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 15:29 -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
just for completeness... I haven't yet double checked if I have done it
correctly but here is the bisected commit:
aed9925a9d5fe9a407d0ca2c65cb577116c4d0f1 is the first bad commit
commit aed9925a9d5fe9a407d0ca2c65cb577116c4d0f1
Hi,
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Sebastian Berg
sebast...@sipsolutions.net wrote:
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 15:29 -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
just for completeness... I haven't yet double checked if I have done it
correctly but here is the bisected commit:
On Wed, 01 May 2013, Matthew Brett wrote:
There really is no point discussing here, this has to do with numpy
doing iteration order optimization, and you actually *want* this. Lets
for a second assume that the old behavior was better, then the next guy
is going to ask: Why is
On Wed, 01 May 2013, Sebastian Berg wrote:
There really is no point discussing here, this has to do with numpy
doing iteration order optimization, and you actually *want* this. Lets
for a second assume that the old behavior was better, then the next guy
is going to ask: Why is
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 16:37 -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013, Sebastian Berg wrote:
There really is no point discussing here, this has to do with numpy
doing iteration order optimization, and you actually *want* this. Lets
for a second assume that the old behavior was
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko
li...@onerussian.com wrote:
could anyone on 32bit system with fresh numpy (1.7.1) test following:
wget -nc http://www.onerussian.com/tmp/data.npy ; python -c 'import numpy as
np; data1 = np.load(/tmp/data.npy); print
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko
li...@onerussian.com wrote:
could anyone on 32bit system with fresh numpy (1.7.1) test following:
wget -nc http://www.onerussian.com/tmp/data.npy ;
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Yaroslav Halchenko li...@onerussian.comwrote:
could anyone on 32bit system with fresh numpy (1.7.1) test following:
wget -nc http://www.onerussian.com/tmp/data.npy ; python -c 'import
numpy as np; data1 = np.load(/tmp/data.npy); print
np.sum(data1[1,:,0,1])
18 matches
Mail list logo
