test_math should run test_exceptions

[mwhudson]

BPO	528438
Nosy	@mwhudson, @tim-one

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = 'https://github.com/mwhudson'
closed_at = <Date 2002-03-13.11:26:58.000>
created_at = <Date 2002-03-11.10:40:02.000>
labels = []
title = 'test_math should run test_exceptions'
updated_at = <Date 2002-03-13.11:26:58.000>
user = 'https://github.com/mwhudson'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2002-03-13.11:26:58.000>
actor = 'mwh'
assignee = 'mwh'
closed = True
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['None']
creation = <Date 2002-03-11.10:40:02.000>
creator = 'mwh'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 528438
keywords = []
message_count = 3.0
messages = ['9630', '9631', '9632']
nosy_count = 2.0
nosy_names = ['mwh', 'tim.peters']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'rejected'
stage = None
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = None
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue528438'
versions = []

[mwhudson]

Currently test_math runs test of overflow/underflow
behaviour only in verbose mode because it was such a
crapshoot as to whether it worked or not.

As it is hoped that the odds have been improved, it
should probably run it unconditionally (at least until
it turns out that in fact it still doesn't work
everywhere).

It should perhaps be expanded to include tests of **
behaviour (unless that's tested somewhere else).

[tim-one]

Logged In: YES
user_id=31435

Back to you! Python still doesn't promise anything here,
and I've got no interest in wading thru reports from 100
Platforms from Mars. That's why these tests aren't run by
default. You can enable them if you like (and I agree it
would be interesting), but unless someone in Python
development is dead serious about supporting this stuff
(I'm not and can't be), the platform-specific failures that
pop up will just irritate all involved.

Ensuring that 1e-200**2 doesn't overflow would be a fine
addition to the std runs-all-the-time test -- except you
can't know whether 1e-200 is in range for the platform's
notion of C double, or whether 1e-200**2 is out of range
(although both are very likely today).

[mwhudson]

Logged In: YES
user_id=6656

Hmm. I think I'll leave this as is.

If I end up doing the 2.2.1c1 release, I'll make sure I ask
people to run test_math in verbose mode. If someone else
ends up doing the release, I'll bug them to ask the same
question.