zaccone@psuvax1.UUCP (Rick Zaccone) (10/19/86)
The following tests were done with version 1.06H.1 of the Manx Aztec C compiler. The compilations were done cc test.c ln test.o -lm -lc Here are the problems. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The function exp() does not work properly. Condiser the following example: #include <math.h> #include <stdio.h> main() { double x,z; printf("Enter x: "); scanf("%E", &x); z = exp(x); printf("exp(x) is %f:n", z); } Here are two sample runs with this program: Enter x: 1 exp(x) is 2.330483 [Correct answer is 2.718281828] Enter x: 10 exp(x) is 18988.393529 [Correct answer is 22026.465] Note that is problem also manifests itself in pow(). Consider the following program: #include <math.h> #include <stdio.h> main() { double x,y,z; printf("Enter x: "); scanf("%E", &x); printf("Enter y: "); scanf("%E", &y); z = pow(x, y); printf("z is %f:n", z); } Enter x: 1.25 Enter y: 15 z is 30.158702 [Correct answer is 28.4217] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Manx claims that pow() and exp() "were not created properly". To correct the problem extract the sources for exp() and pow() from math.arc using arcv. Recompile them, and install them into m.lib using libutil. I'm not sure if there is a problem in any of the other math libraries. The above examples will work correctly after recompiling pow() and exp(). -- Rick Zaccone Pennsylvania State University CSNET: zaccone@penn-state BITNET: zaccone@psuvax1 UUCP: {akgua,allegra,burdvax,ihnp4}!psuvax1!zaccone
fry_b@husc4.harvard.edu (david fry) (10/20/86)
In article <2310@psuvax1.UUCP> zaccone@psuvax1.UUCP (Rick Zaccone) writes: [...] >The function exp() does not work properly. Condiser the following >example: I have been pretty much displeased with the floating point libraries provided with Aztec C. They barely perform any better than MS-BASIC on some benchmarks and are destroyed by True Basic, so I know that something better is possible. Has anyone rewritten the floating point libraries? I think they could be made faster by recoding the routines in assembly, and perhaps using better routines, but I don't know any assembly. Has anyone heard any news about Manx doing this? Thanks in advance. David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@harvma1.bitnet Harvard University fry%huma1@harvsc4.bitnet Cambridge, MA 02138 ...!harvard!huma1!fry