dolfin team mailing list archive

[Martin Sandve Alnæs <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>]

I already explained this, but let me make it clearer:

If
  x >> eps,
such that
  x + eps == x,
then near(x, x) implemented as
  x < x + eps
will be equivalent to
  x < x
which is false.

Clearly, near(x,x) should always be true in a correct implementation.
Using x <= x + eps fixes this. This is not "relying on equality",
that would be using ==.

If you have a failing test case, show it to me and I will see what I can do.

Martin


On 8 July 2011 12:21, Garth N. Wells <gnw20@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think that this is a 'bug' in the test. Relying on equality (i.e. <=
> versus <) for non-integers will lead to problems somewhere (like the
> 32-bit buildbot failing).
>
> Garth
>
>
> On 08/07/11 09:23, noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> revno: 6054
>> committer: Martin Alnes <martinal@xxxxxxxxx>
>> branch nick: work
>> timestamp: Fri 2011-07-08 10:20:54 +0200
>> message:
>>   Re-introduce bugfix in near after recent mistaken(?) re-introduction of the bug, or something... Also disable debug print in test.
>> modified:
>>   dolfin/math/basic.cpp
>>   test/unit/math/python/basic.py
>>
>>
>> --
>> lp:dolfin
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~dolfin-core/dolfin/main
>>
>> Your team DOLFIN Core Team is subscribed to branch lp:dolfin.
>> To unsubscribe from this branch go to https://code.launchpad.net/~dolfin-core/dolfin/main/+edit-subscription
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> Post to     : dolfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>