Next: FORTRAN Version (using Up: Linux 1.1.68 (niespx Previous: Linux 1.1.68 (niespx

C Version


Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 3          Page: 4

Program is now RUNNING tests on small integers:
-1, 0, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 27, 32 & 240 are O.K.

Searching for Radix and Precision.
Radix = 2.000000 .
Closest relative separation found is U1 = 1.1102230e-16 .

Recalculating radix and precision
 confirms closest relative separation U1 .
Radix confirmed.
The number of significant digits of the Radix is 53.000000 .
Some subexpressions appear to be calculated extra
precisely with about 11 extra B-digits, i.e.
roughly 3.31133 extra significant decimals.
That feature is not tested further by this program.

To continue, press RETURN
Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 30          Page: 5

Subtraction appears to be normalized, as it should be.
Checking for guard digit in *, /, and -.
     *, /, and - appear to have guard digits, as they should.

To continue, press RETURN
Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 40          Page: 6

Checking rounding on multiply, divide and add/subtract.
* is neither chopped nor correctly rounded.
/ is neither chopped nor correctly rounded.
Addition/Subtraction neither rounds nor chops.
Sticky bit used incorrectly or not at all.
FLAW:  lack(s) of guard digits or failure(s) to correctly round or chop
(noted above) count as one flaw in the final tally below.

Does Multiplication commute?  Testing on 20 random pairs.
     No failures found in 20 integer pairs.

Running test of square root(x).
Testing if sqrt(X * X) == X for 20 Integers X.
Test for sqrt monotonicity.
sqrt has passed a test for Monotonicity.
Testing whether sqrt is rounded or chopped.
Square root is neither chopped nor correctly rounded.
Observed errors run from -5.0000000e-01 to 5.0000000e-01 ulps.

To continue, press RETURN
Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 90          Page: 7

Testing powers Z^i for small Integers Z and i.
... no discrepancies found.

Seeking Underflow thresholds UfThold and E0.
Smallest strictly positive number found is E0 = 4.94066e-324 .
Since comparison denies Z = 0, evaluating (Z + Z) / Z should be safe.
What the machine gets for (Z + Z) / Z is  2.00000000000000000e+00 .
This is O.K., provided Over/Underflow has NOT just been signaled.
Underflow is gradual; it incurs Absolute Error =
(roundoff in UfThold) < E0.
The Underflow threshold is 2.22507385850720188e-308,  below which
calculation may suffer larger Relative error than merely roundoff.
Since underflow occurs below the threshold
UfThold = (2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03)
only underflow should afflict the expression
        (2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-2.04400000000000000e+03);
actually calculating yields: 0.00000000000000000e+00 .
This computed value is O.K.

Testing X^((X + 1) / (X - 1)) vs. exp(2) = 7.38905609893065218e+00 as X -> 1.
Accuracy seems adequate.
Testing powers Z^Q at four nearly extreme values.
 ... no discrepancies found.


To continue, press RETURN
Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 160          Page: 8

Searching for Overflow threshold:
This may generate an error.

* * * FLOATING-POINT ERROR 8 * * *
Can `Z = -Y' overflow?
Trying it on Y = -8.98846567431157954e+307 .
Seems O.K.
Overflow threshold is V  = 1.79769313486231571e+308 .
There is no saturation value because the system traps on overflow.
No Overflow should be signaled for V * 1 = 1.79769313486231571e+308
                           nor for V / 1 = 1.79769313486231571e+308 .
Any overflow signal separating this * from the one
above is a DEFECT.


To continue, press RETURN
Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 190          Page: 9


What message and/or values does Division by Zero produce?
This can interupt your program.  You can skip this part if you wish.
Do you wish to compute 1 / 0?     Trying to compute 1 / 0 produces ...
* * * FLOATING-POINT ERROR 8 * * *

Do you wish to compute 0 / 0? 
    Trying to compute 0 / 0 produces ...
* * * FLOATING-POINT ERROR 8 * * *

To continue, press RETURN
Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 220          Page: 10


The number of  FLAWs  discovered =           1.

The arithmetic diagnosed seems Satisfactory though flawed.

A total of 3 floating point exceptions were registered.
END OF TEST.


peter@physik3.gwdg.de
Tue Aug 8 13:05:00 GMT+0200 1995