|
|
- Timestamp:
-
Sep 21, 2015, 9:58:15 AM (9 years ago)
- Author:
-
Juergen Reuter
- Comment:
-
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
|
initial
|
v1
|
|
| 1 | 1 | The status is the following: the Intel compiler had some problems in quadruple precision as the I/O of the generated events was unformatted. As of r7246 this was corrected to formatted I/O. Also, one small correction had been made to the I/O format in order to fit the pull of all |
| 2 | 2 | comparisons (also the part of the tests that are expected to fail). |
| 3 | | Now there is only one failing test at quadruple precision, consistently with gfortran and ifort, delta.run. Here, only extreme values (0 and 1) appear. For double and extended precision the variance is always smaller than epsilon(variance) while for quadruple precision the variance could become than a few 10^-34 (being the epsilon of quadruple precision). The square root of this is than as small as (a few) 10^-17 which results in too many too large pulls. If TO agrees my suggestion would be to introduce epsilon(double) as an upper cutoff for the variance to solve this problem. |
| | 3 | Now there is only one failing test at quadruple precision, consistently with gfortran and ifort, delta.run. Here, only extreme values (0 and 1) appear. For double and extended precision the variance is always smaller than epsilon(variance) while for quadruple precision the variance could become as small as a few 1.E-34 (being the epsilon of quadruple precision). The square root of this is than as small as (a few) 1.E-17 which results in too many too large pulls. If TO agrees my suggestion would be to introduce epsilon(double) as an upper cutoff for the variance to solve this problem. |
|
