[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[gforth] Strange behavior of f! etc. - pinpointed
From: |
Marcel Hendrix |
Subject: |
[gforth] Strange behavior of f! etc. - pinpointed |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:14:23 +0100 (CET) |
Marcel Hendrix <address@hidden> writes Re: Strange behavior of f! etc.
X-Online-Scanned: by Cloudmark authority (on smtp09.online.nl)
> What has changed? It appears something is wrong with array indexing.
> However, the official Gforth files from the FSL
> (http://www.taygeta.com/fsl/scilib.html) are used?
[..]
First, apologies for the 'broad' question and the wrong pointer,
I had no idea where the bug was.
Actually, there's a problem
a) Only on Windows 7 64bit, Intel processor,
b) Only with gforth-fast, 32bit binary.
Second, I narrowed down the problem -- at least FSIN, FCOS, FTAN,
FSINCOS, FSINH, FASIN and FASINH produce undetected stack errors .
Test:
C:\gforth>gforth-fast
Gforth 0.7.0, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
Type `bye' to exit
1 2 3 pi cr .s f.s fsin cr .s f.s
<3> 1 2 3 <1> 3.141592653590E0
<3> 1 2 2 <1> 1.2246467991E-16 ok
The data stack has been corrupted.
Fix: : FSIN 0 FSIN DROP ;
: fsin 0 fsin drop ; redefined fsin ok
1 2 3 pi cr .s f.s fsin cr .s f.s
<3> 1 2 3 <1> 3.141592653590E0
<3> 1 2 3 <1> 1.2246467991E-16 ok
I looked at FCOS, FTAN, FSINCOS, FSINH, FASIN and FASINH and they
have the same stack problem. However, FSQRT and FTRUNC are OK.
David Kuehling <address@hidden> wrote:
> BTW gforth comes with its own version of fsl-utilg.fth, try
> require fsl-util.4th
I used that too, but as I was not sure where that file came from
(.4th extension?) I downloaded from Taygeta.
Charles G Montgomery <address@hidden> writes:
> BTW, the name of the official FSL file is walsh.fth rather than
> walsh.fs. I think only the name of the file is different.
True, I renamed while downloading.
Charles G Montgomery <address@hidden> writes:
> Stranger and stranger. When I use gforth-fast on amd64 I do not see
> Marcel's problem; it runs correctly with either gforth or gforth-fast.
> So I tried it on i386. There I get (apparently) correct results with
> gforth. But with gforth-fast I get different results for "32 wtest-
> init", The xx{ array starts with 195.09 11.8997 17.849 ... instead of
> 195.09 382.683 555.57 ...
That is probably an unrelated bug.
-marcel
- [gforth] Strange behavior of f! etc. - pinpointed,
Marcel Hendrix <=