Fix test failure on ppc64le and aarch64 with gcc 12 #9601
Closed
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
.../hist/hist/test/test_tprofile2poly.cxx:61: Failure The difference between cont1 and cont2 is 1.4551915228366852e-11, which exceeds delta, where cont1 evaluates to 54886.064319363642, cont2 evaluates to 54886.064319363628, and delta evaluates to 9.999999960041972e-12. .../hist/hist/test/test_tprofile2poly.cxx:61: Failure The difference between cont1 and cont2 is 1.4551915228366852e-11, where cont1 evaluates to 109868.61342004745, cont2 evaluates to 109868.61342004743. The abs_error parameter delta evaluates to 9.999999960041972e-12 which is smaller than the minimum distance between doubles for numbers of this magnitude which is 1.4551915228366852e-11, thus making this EXPECT_NEAR check equivalent to EXPECT_EQUAL. Consider using EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ instead.
|
Starting build on |
|
Now passes all tests. |
|
Still happens in 6.28.00. |
guitargeek
added a commit
to guitargeek/root
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2023
As seen in root-project#9601, using `EXCEPT_NEAR` with an absolute error is not so good, because if the numbers are large the hardcoded absolute error can be smaller than the double precision. In these cases, `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ` is recommended instead.
|
Hi! I'm not so happy with the uncommented magic factor of two :( Can we maybe solve the problem like this? |
guitargeek
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 23, 2023
As seen in #9601, using `EXCEPT_NEAR` with an absolute error is not so good, because if the numbers are large the hardcoded absolute error can be smaller than the double precision. In these cases, `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ` is recommended instead.
|
Hi @ellert, since there was no reply I just went ahead with merging the other PR. But if there are still issues, feel free to re-open this PR, create a new PR or open a GitHub issue about it! Thanks, |
guitargeek
added a commit
to guitargeek/root
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 24, 2023
As seen in root-project#9601, using `EXCEPT_NEAR` with an absolute error is not so good, because if the numbers are large the hardcoded absolute error can be smaller than the double precision. In these cases, `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ` is recommended instead.
guitargeek
added a commit
to guitargeek/root
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 24, 2023
As seen in root-project#9601, using `EXCEPT_NEAR` with an absolute error is not so good, because if the numbers are large the hardcoded absolute error can be smaller than the double precision. In these cases, `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ` is recommended instead. In some cases, `EXPECT_NEAR` is still used to make the test pass on all platforms, but with a relative tolerance.
guitargeek
added a commit
to guitargeek/root
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 24, 2023
As seen in root-project#9601, using `EXCEPT_NEAR` with an absolute error is not so good, because if the numbers are large the hardcoded absolute error can be smaller than the double precision. In these cases, `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ` is recommended instead. In some cases, `EXPECT_NEAR` is still used to make the test pass on all platforms, but with a relative tolerance.
guitargeek
added a commit
to guitargeek/root
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2023
As seen in root-project#9601, using `EXCEPT_NEAR` with an absolute error is not so good, because if the numbers are large the hardcoded absolute error can be smaller than the double precision. In these cases, `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ` is recommended instead. In some cases, `EXPECT_NEAR` is still used to make the test pass on all platforms, but with a relative tolerance.
guitargeek
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2023
As seen in #9601, using `EXCEPT_NEAR` with an absolute error is not so good, because if the numbers are large the hardcoded absolute error can be smaller than the double precision. In these cases, `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ` is recommended instead. In some cases, `EXPECT_NEAR` is still used to make the test pass on all platforms, but with a relative tolerance.
|
Hi @guitargeek , the factor is not more magic than the |
maksgraczyk
pushed a commit
to maksgraczyk/root
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2024
As seen in root-project#9601, using `EXCEPT_NEAR` with an absolute error is not so good, because if the numbers are large the hardcoded absolute error can be smaller than the double precision. In these cases, `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ` is recommended instead.
maksgraczyk
pushed a commit
to maksgraczyk/root
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2024
As seen in root-project#9601, using `EXCEPT_NEAR` with an absolute error is not so good, because if the numbers are large the hardcoded absolute error can be smaller than the double precision. In these cases, `EXPECT_DOUBLE_EQ` is recommended instead. In some cases, `EXPECT_NEAR` is still used to make the test pass on all platforms, but with a relative tolerance.
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.
This Pull request:
Changes or fixes:
Checklist: