From: Rick M. <obj...@gm...> - 2008-09-06 17:51:13
|
The value of 16 is the precision limit of doubles, not the Rexx values. I guess the validation should just cap the value used at 16 rather than make this an error now. Rick On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Mark Miesfeld <mie...@gm...> wrote: > Mostly directed to Rick. > > I attached a new log to the tracker item in test cases that I opened. > It is from Windows XP 64-bit instead of Vista. There are some test > cases failing that are the result of operating system changes between > XP and Vista, not related to 64-bit. I'll work on the Vista / XP > ones. > > There are a large number of failures in the RxMath test group. The > initial cause comes from the ValidateXXX() functions. We have: > > *precision = RexxGetCurrentPrecision(); > ... > else if ( (*precision > MAX_PRECISION) || (*precision < MIN_PRECISION) ) > { > RxErrMsgSet1("The precision is not in the valid range (1-16)"); > rc = INVALID_ROUTINE; > } > > and > > #define MAX_PRECISION 16 /* maximum available precision*/ > > On 64-bit RexxGetCurrentPrecision() returns 18. > > I must confess that while I understand some of the principles involved > in numeric computations, I am hazy on the details. Is there any > reason why the max precision can not be 18 on 64-bit systems? > > Anyhow, I was going to work on that test group late last night, and > then decided it needs someone move confident on the details than I am. > > -- > Mark Miesfeld > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oor...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel > |