adds a nan check to xc[i] #12263
Merged
adds a nan check to xc[i] #12263
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
edrumwri
reviewed
Oct 29, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1.
Reviewable status: LGTM missing from assignee sammy-tri(platform)
sammy-tri
reviewed
Oct 29, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1.
Reviewable status:complete! all discussions resolved, LGTM from assignees sammy-tri(platform),edrumwri
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Recently this PR was merged into master to add NaN checks for the integrator
#12217
In the PR, the comments for IsUpdateZero() state that it will return false if NaNs are detected; however, there is a logical mistake in the implementation, where if all xc[i] are NaN and dxc[i] are normal, it will return true. This change adds a NaN check for xc[i]s so that the code behaves as expected.
The original issue was #12201
This change is