GNU Scientific Library - Bugs: bug #53919, handle large values correctly in...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #53919: handle large values correctly in (log_)erf(c) functions
Submitter: | Patrick Alken <psa> | ||
Submitted: | Wed 16 May 2018 02:55:06 AM UTC | ||
Category: | Runtime error | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Operating System: | Status: | None | |
Assigned to: | None | Open/Closed: | Open |
Release: |
Thu 19 Sep 2019 12:46:15 AM UTC, comment #2: |
Alex Henrie <alexhenrie> |
Wed 16 May 2018 03:01:24 AM UTC, comment #1: The patch uses HUGE_VAL (C99) and isnan() checks - there is probably a cleaner way to handle the problem, but will require further investigation |
Patrick Alken <psa>![]() |
Wed 16 May 2018 02:55:06 AM UTC, original submission:
from alexhenrie24 =at= gmail =dot= com |
Patrick Alken <psa>![]() |
Attached Files
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
Carbon-Copy List
Follow 2 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019-09-19 | alexhenrie | Attached File | - | ![]() |
Added v2-erf.diff, #47547 |
2018-05-16 | psa | Attached File | - | ![]() |
Added erf.patch, #44163 |
Hi, I'd still like to see this fixed. I just uploaded a new version of the patch that uses gsl_isnan, GSL_POSINF, and GSL_NEGINF instead of isnan, HUGE_VAL, and -HUGE_VAL. I don't think there is any cleaner way to solve the problem, but even if there is, it would be better to apply this patch than no patch at all.
(file #47547)