Steel Bank Common Lisp

Hello *,

Running times of the maxima testsuite by various lisps on my pentium E5300 
box are

sbcl-1.0.45   165
cmucl-20b     172
gcl-2.6.8_pre 172
ccl-1.6       322
ecl-11.1.1    344
clisp-2.49    552

For the first time, sbcl became fastest in this benchmark (in recent 
times, cmucl was faster).

But...

Now there is a new testsuite failure with sbcl. It's rtest16, problem 385.
It's about floating-point calculation of zeta(%i+3) (%i is the imaginary 
unit). sbcl produced a resulr with error of order 3*10^(-9) instead of 
expected 10^(-15). Earlier versions of sbcl did not have this failure. 
Looks like a regression. All the other lisps listed above also don't have 
this particular failure (ecl has 2 failures in rtest8, this is another 
story). Looks like something is calculated in single precision when it 
should be done in double.

It would be interesting to trace which change in sbcl has caused this 
regression.

Many thanks for this excellent lisp system (I use it for maxima and 
fricas),
Andrey

Dnia Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:35:21 +0600, Andrey G. Grozin napisał(a):
Hi,
Thx for informations.

Could you describe your memory settings ?
( How big memory do you use ?)


Adam


Do 
> P.S.
> 
> ecl-10.4.1 had the same failure (plus in the previous problem 384). But
> in 11.1.1 they are fixed. Maybe, ecl changelog is of some help.
> 
> Andrey
> 
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Protect Your Site and Customers from Malware Attacks Learn about various
> malware tactics and how to avoid them. Understand malware threats, the
> impact they can have on your business, and how you can protect your
> company and customers by using code signing.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl

On 17 January 2011 18:15, Andrey G. Grozin <A.G.Grozin@...> wrote:

> Now there is a new testsuite failure with sbcl. It's rtest16, problem 385.
> It's about floating-point calculation of zeta(%i+3) (%i is the imaginary
> unit). sbcl produced a resulr with error of order 3*10^(-9) instead of
> expected 10^(-15). Earlier versions of sbcl did not have this failure.
> Looks like a regression. All the other lisps listed above also don't have
> this particular failure (ecl has 2 failures in rtest8, this is another
> story). Looks like something is calculated in single precision when it
> should be done in double.

Do you recall what's the latest version in which that test passed? (It
fails with 1.0.44 as well.)

Alternatively, if a Maxima wizard can reduce a test-case that doesn't
involve Maxima -- just shows an SBCL operation that returns the wrong
value -- what would help too.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus