On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 03:01:51PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > If I undefine HAVE_CBRT on Linux, I get the exact same failure! So it > seems our own version of cbrt() is broken wrt our own regression tests > :-( Must be that nobody else (at least on i386) uses that code.
<snip> > What do you think is best - try to adapt that version, or update our > regression tests outputs to accept the output from our current code? Given that our output gets very very close, perhaps we should take a hint from the end of the MinGW version, do a single Newton iteration to fixup those last few digits. Adding this before the last line of our version of cbrt(): tmpres -= ( tmpres - (x/(tmpres*tmpres)) )*0.33333333333333333333; Makes it give the same result as my system version... -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
