Re: [Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-10 Thread Peter Dalgaard
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks more serious. 100 times machine precision is quite a large margin in these matters. Could you perhaps stick in a printout of the two terms and their difference? I have an ATLAS build on AMD64 and it

Re: [Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-10 Thread p . dalgaard
Peter Dalgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Aha! 100 times machine precision in not all that much when the numbers themselves are in double digits. In fact, one is over 100. The case that triggers the failure is #149 147 148 149 151 152

Re: [Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-10 Thread M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Peter Dalgaard wrote: M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks more serious. 100 times machine precision is quite a large margin in these matters. Could you perhaps stick in a printout of the two terms and their difference? I have an ATLAS build

Re: [Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-10 Thread Prof Brian Ripley
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: Peter Dalgaard wrote: M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks more serious. 100 times machine precision is quite a large margin in these matters. Could you perhaps stick in a printout of the two terms

Re: [Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-10 Thread Peter Dalgaard
Prof Brian Ripley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the issue is ATLAS on your old Athlon. ATLAS 3.6.0 compiled from the sources works correctly with gcc-3.4.3 on my Athlon MP (and also on an Athlon XP), but AFAIR those have instructions the Athlon Thunderbird does not have. (Both my

[Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-09 Thread znmeb
Full_Name: Ed Borasky Version: R-beta 2.1.0 2005-04-08 OS: Linux 2.6.11 GCC 3.3.5 Submission from: (NULL) (24.21.57.139) I downloaded the latest R-beta tarball and did a build with the default options. OS is Linux 2.6.11 and compiler is GCC 3.3.5. make check-all failed with the following

Re: [Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-09 Thread Peter Dalgaard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Full_Name: Ed Borasky Version: R-beta 2.1.0 2005-04-08 OS: Linux 2.6.11 GCC 3.3.5 Submission from: (NULL) (24.21.57.139) I downloaded the latest R-beta tarball and did a build with the default options. OS is Linux 2.6.11 and compiler is GCC 3.3.5. make

Re: [Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-09 Thread M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Peter Dalgaard wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Full_Name: Ed Borasky Version: R-beta 2.1.0 2005-04-08 OS: Linux 2.6.11 GCC 3.3.5 Submission from: (NULL) (24.21.57.139) I downloaded the latest R-beta tarball and did a build with the default options. OS is Linux 2.6.11 and compiler is GCC

Re: [Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-09 Thread p . dalgaard
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [snip] Hmm, could you replace the a1 == a2 with all.equal(a1, a2) instead? (inside reg-tests-1.R of course) Asking for identity up to machine precision does look a bit optimistic... That worked ... it got through reg-tests-1.R fine.

Re: [Rd] make check-all fails (PR#7784)

2005-04-09 Thread M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks more serious. 100 times machine precision is quite a large margin in these matters. Could you perhaps stick in a printout of the two terms and their difference? I have an ATLAS build on AMD64 and it passes all the checks, but it is using ATLAS 3.7.8, so you