Is sci-libs/gsl-1.8 ready for stabilization? Do you know of any problem with other programs?
Hi Torsten, I am not aware of any problems and from my point of view gsl-1.8 should be good to go stable. I'll have a look at it soon and if things are fine I'll cc the respective arch teams. Thanks, Markus
Hi, Could we please stabilize sci-libs/gsl-1.8!? It has been bug free for quite some time now and seems to be doing pretty well :) src_test() will go through a fairly extensive set of test routines and should allow you to verify the package. Thanks, Markus
Stable for HPPA.
x86 stable
are the tests 64bit save? (this is ppc64) [...] make[2]: Entering directory `/var/tmp/portage/sci-libs/gsl-1.8/work/gsl-1.8/ieee-utils' FAIL: double x = -1.3304..., mantissa (0101100010000010010100101010010010001000100011101110 observed vs 0101010010010010010100101010010010001000100011101110 expected) [149] FAIL: double x = 3.37e297, mantissa (0100011001111001100101111001100000100110011101000100 observed vs 0100100111001001100101111001100000100110011101000100 expected) [153] FAIL: double x = 3.37e-297, mantissa (0001000100111011101011100001110010100001001100110111 observed vs 0001101000011011101011100001110010100001001100110111 expected) [157] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^5, mantissa (0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 observed vs 0000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expected) [185] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^5, type is DENORMAL (5 observed vs 4 expected) [186] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^6, mantissa (0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 observed vs 0000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expected) [189] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^6, type is DENORMAL (5 observed vs 4 expected) [190] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^7, mantissa (0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 observed vs 0000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expected) [193] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^7, type is DENORMAL (5 observed vs 4 expected) [194] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^8, mantissa (0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 observed vs 0000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expected) [197] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^8, type is DENORMAL (5 observed vs 4 expected) [198] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^9, mantissa (0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 observed vs 0000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expected) [201] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^9, type is DENORMAL (5 observed vs 4 expected) [202] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^10, mantissa (0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 observed vs 0000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expected) [205] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^10, type is DENORMAL (5 observed vs 4 expected) [206] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^11, mantissa (0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 observed vs 0000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expected) [209] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^11, type is DENORMAL (5 observed vs 4 expected) [210] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^12, mantissa (0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 observed vs 0000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000 expected) [213] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^12, type is DENORMAL (5 observed vs 4 expected) [214] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^37, mantissa (0000100000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000 observed vs 0000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000 expected) [313] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^38, mantissa (0000010000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000 observed vs 0000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000 expected) [317] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^39, mantissa (0000001000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000 observed vs 0000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000 expected) [321] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^40, mantissa (0000000100000000000000000000000000000001000000000000 observed vs 0000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000 expected) [325] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^41, mantissa (0000000010000000000000000000000000000000100000000000 observed vs 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000 expected) [329] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^42, mantissa (0000000001000000000000000000000000000000010000000000 observed vs 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000 expected) [333] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^43, mantissa (0000000000100000000000000000000000000000001000000000 observed vs 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000 expected) [337] FAIL: double x = DBL_MIN/2^44, mantissa (0000000000010000000000000000000000000000000100000000 observed vs 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000 expected) [341] FAIL: test =================== 1 of 1 tests failed ===================
(In reply to comment #5) > are the tests 64bit save? (this is ppc64) > I assumed so since nothing (significant) has changed in this part of gsl from 1.7 which is stable on ppc64 and presumably passed the tests. That said, could you please try gsl-1.7 and see if this works for you. Also, during configure, could you check for output similar to ------ SNIP ------------------ checking for IEEE arithmetic interface type... gnux86 checking for FPU_SETCW... yes checking for IEEE compiler flags... none checking for IEEE comparisons... yes checking for IEEE denormalized values... yes --------------------------------- I would assume you should see gnuppc instead of gnux86 otherwise gsl might select improper IEEE conventions for its floating point operations. Thanks, Markus
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > are the tests 64bit save? (this is ppc64) > > > > I assumed so since nothing (significant) has changed in this part > of gsl from 1.7 which is stable on ppc64 and presumably > passed the tests. That said, could you please try gsl-1.7 > and see if this works for you. not necessarily ... (that's due to /me forgetting to enable FEATURES="test" after some merges, which are known to fail tests - for example some parts of kde ..) 1.7 does fail, too. > Also, during configure, could you check for output > similar to > > ------ SNIP ------------------ > > checking for IEEE arithmetic interface type... gnux86 > checking for FPU_SETCW... yes > checking for IEEE compiler flags... none > checking for IEEE comparisons... yes > checking for IEEE denormalized values... yes > > --------------------------------- > > I would assume you should see gnuppc instead of gnux86 > otherwise gsl might select improper IEEE conventions > for its floating point operations. I'm getting this: checking for IEEE arithmetic interface type... unknown checking for IEEE compiler flags... none checking for IEEE comparisons... yes checking for IEEE denormalized values... yes I'll mark 1.8 stable on ppc64 once cvs is up again as this is no regression. I'll open an upstream bug for this, so this is fixed in future versions. I should have never marked 1.7 stable... :-/
(In reply to comment #7) > > checking for IEEE arithmetic interface type... unknown > checking for IEEE compiler flags... none > checking for IEEE comparisons... yes > checking for IEEE denormalized values... yes > > Thanks a lot for your efforts, Markus! I apologize for my "ppc ignorance" but what would the proper $host in configure be for ppc/ppc64? Currently, gsl's configure checks for powerpc-*-linux* which is obviously incorrect. Thanks, Markus
the correct CHOST is powerpc64*-*-linux*. Unfortunately you cannot use gnuppc as IEEE arithmetic interface type. (tests still fail if I change configure to detect my machine as gnuppc). I've marked gsl 1.8 stable on ppc64 (as 1.7 has the same issues on ppc64). As I said before I'll make this problem known to upstream. The tests don't look too difficult so I think I can create a proper patch.
(In reply to comment #9) I've marked gsl 1.8 stable on ppc64 (as 1.7 has the same issues on ppc64). > > As I said before I'll make this problem known to upstream. The tests don't look > too difficult so I think I can create a proper patch. > Thanks :)
Stable on ppc
amd64 stable
ia64 stable
ppc-macos moved to prefix.
Hi alpha and arm herd, I am going to close this stabilization bug since I will open a new one for gsl-1.9 shortly which we then can hopefully mark stable on your respective arches. I hope this works for you and I am closing this as fixed anyway. cheers, Markus
