On 17.07.2013 16:11, Brian Lewis wrote:
On 2013.07.17, at 08:03, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
This has all the marks of a 64-bit-only code running on a 32 bit
machine.
This discussion is interesting, but I'm not sure why so much of it is
taking place here instead of on the mwc-random issue tracke
On 2013.07.17, at 08:03, Jan-Willem Maessen wrote:
> This has all the marks of a 64-bit-only code running on a 32 bit
> machine.
This discussion is interesting, but I'm not sure why so much of it is
taking place here instead of on the mwc-random issue tracker:
https://github.com/bos/mwc-random/iss
This has all the marks of a 64-bit-only code running on a 32 bit machine.
It looks like you're getting the high bits of the rng with a signed shift
right, ultimately yielding only the sign bit.
I suspect mwc-random needs to use Int64 rather than Int internally in a few
critical places.
On Wed,
Test triggers the bug, only zeros and ones like you said, but
only for native-sized types:
-O2:
Int
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Int32
41 37 25 85 27 84 70 8 70 32 36 1 14 92 1 74 17 28 38 76
Int64
37 77 57 75 17 58 28 77 23 51 1 13 50 35 21 11 70 43 6 5
Word
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
On 10 July 2013 14:10, kudah wrote:
> Yes, it does. Without optimizations the result is
> "ndgorsfesnywaiqraloa", while with optimizations the result is always
> "aabb".
>
Sorry for taking so long. So problem is uniformR. You can reproduce bug
reliably and I cannot. Are you on 32-b
Yes, it does. Without optimizations the result is
"ndgorsfesnywaiqraloa", while with optimizations the result is always
"aabb".
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:21:10 +0400 Aleksey Khudyakov
wrote:
> On 10.07.2013 01:38, kudah wrote:
> > I've attached the script that I had trouble with. It
On 10.07.2013 01:38, kudah wrote:
I've attached the script that I had trouble with. It tries to replicate
one directory structure in another directory, while replacing filenames
and file contents with random data. When compiled with -O1 or -O2
resulting file and directory names are composed only
I've attached the script that I had trouble with. It tries to replicate
one directory structure in another directory, while replacing filenames
and file contents with random data. When compiled with -O1 or -O2
resulting file and directory names are composed only of a's and b's,
but file contents se
On 09.07.2013 22:10, kudah wrote:
Same here, I used mwc-random to generate random strings. It works in
ghci and when compiled with -O0, but with -O1 and -O2 I've been getting
exclusively a's and b's.
It looks like MWC generates only 0 and 1 for some reason. I've tried to
write simple test but e
Same here, I used mwc-random to generate random strings. It works in
ghci and when compiled with -O0, but with -O1 and -O2 I've been getting
exclusively a's and b's.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:48:06 +0500 Azeem -ul-Hasan
wrote:
> I am using
>GHC 7.6.1
>mwc-random 0.12.0.1
>vector 0.9.1
>
On 17 March 2013 21:49, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
> Aleksey Khudyakov gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I've tried to run you program and I've got approximately same results
>> regardless of optimization level. Which versions of GHC, mwc-random,
>> vector and primitive do you use?
>>
>
> By approximate do yo
Aleksey Khudyakov gmail.com> writes:
> I've tried to run you program and I've got approximately same results
> regardless of optimization level. Which versions of GHC, mwc-random,
> vector and primitive do you use?
>
By approximate do you mean you are getting Monte Carlo noise
or Floating Poi
I am using
GHC 7.6.1
mwc-random 0.12.0.1
vector 0.9.1
primitive 0.4.1
Azeem
On 16.03.2013 13:31, Azeem -ul-Hasan wrote:
> Nope that isn't the case either. Even if I make use of defaultSeed
> through create the problem still remains. The problem seems to be in the
> generation of a v
On 16.03.2013 13:31, Azeem -ul-Hasan wrote:
Nope that isn't the case either. Even if I make use of defaultSeed
through create the problem still remains. The problem seems to be in the
generation of a vector of (a,a) i.e in the part
V.generateM ((round $ p*(fromIntegral $ l*z)) `div` 2) (\i-> R.u
in line 16. Thanks again.
Azeem
> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:58:50 +0200
> From: r...@ro-che.info
> To: aze...@live.com
> CC: carter.schonw...@gmail.com; haskell-cafe@haskell.org
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Optimization flag changing result of code
> execution
>
turned on. So any ideas
> why optimizations are messing with System.Random.MWC?
>
> Azeem
> From: carter.schonw...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:09:36 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Optimization flag changing result of code
> execution
> To: aze...@live.com
&g
from System.Random and it
works fine with optimizations turned on. So any ideas why optimizations are
messing with System.Random.MWC?
Azeem
From: carter.schonw...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:09:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Optimization flag changing result of code execution
To: aze
Hey Azeem,
have you tried running the same calculation using rationals? Theres some
subtleties to writing numerically stable code using floats and doubles,
where simple optimizations change the orders of operations in ways that
*significantly* change the result. In this case it looks like you're
av
18 matches
Mail list logo
