Hi Milton,
I've also opened the other test documents in
sc/qa/unit/data/functions/array/fods/ using LibreOffice. The documents which
fail are linest.fods and also logest.fods. The others succeed.
If your build completed ignoring these tests (i.e. produced a
usable office under ./instdir/), could you please open the
failing documents and tell us the cell addresses on the second
sheet where tests fail and the actual values they produced?
Below are the numbers. Some remarks: Many errors are in the
range of 1E-11 to 1E-12 but some are way larger >1E30. I assume
this is due some division of a very small error.
Has someone done a/some theoretical error analysis of the
algorithms involved? (e.g. numeric (forward/backward) stability
and error estimates similar to what is well-known for LU
factorization and other algorithms.)
Who/What provided the reference values -- or reformulated --
what error do these numbers have (wrt to the mathematical
solution).
Looking at the numbers it would be better to use ROUNDSIG instead of ROUND.
ROUND(1.2345E30,4) has no effect, ROUNDSIG(1.2345E30,4) rounds to 4
significant digits, i.e. 1.234E30.
ROUNDSIG was only added to Calc last February, so most unit test
documents don't use it (yet).
Winfried
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
