1 |
On Sunday 26 June 2011 14:21:11 Barry Schwartz wrote: |
2 |
> Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> skribis: |
3 |
> > ok, I tried ekopath: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > UCBFAIL indicates problems! |
6 |
> > /tmp/usbtest/ccos_DP.output: ucbtest UCBFAIL in COS(X) at line 444 for |
7 |
> > generic /tmp/usbtest/cexp_DP.output: ucbtest UCBFAIL in EXP(X) at line |
8 |
> > 444 for generic /tmp/usbtest/clib_DP.output: ucbtest UCBFAIL in ceild |
9 |
> > at line 701 for double /tmp/usbtest/clib_DP.output: ucbtest UCBFAIL in |
10 |
> > coshd at line 701 for double /tmp/usbtest/clib_DP.output: ucbtest |
11 |
> > UCBFAIL in floord at line 701 for double |
12 |
> > /tmp/usbtest/clib_DP.output:UCBFAIL clib_DP.output , 25 out of 25 tests |
13 |
> > completed |
14 |
> > /tmp/usbtest/csin_DP.output: ucbtest UCBFAIL in SIN(X) at line 444 for |
15 |
> > generic |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > only 10 out of 14 show UCBPASS! |
18 |
> |
19 |
> That must be what they mean by "Industry proven robustness and |
20 |
> quality" |
21 |
|
22 |
no, that probably means that the 'problem' is |
23 |
|
24 |
either not a problem at all. Failing some test and not being accurate or being |
25 |
wrong or even not following some standard are very different thins |
26 |
|
27 |
or not caused by the compilers but something else. Like libc, libm, etc. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
#163933 |