Hi Stefan, A recent FTBFS for GiNaC-1.8.2 on Debian's mipsel port [1] turned up a little issue with the precision goal not being 100% reproducible. The recursive calls in GiNaC::map_trafo_H_1overx::operator() assemble symbolic functions before evalf()'ing and these are not deterministic. This makes numeric results slightly differ between calls. As a result, regression test suite exam_inifcns_nstdsums.cpp fails in about 1.6% of all cases. It only ever seems to affect H(lst{-2,1,3},numeric(245)/100) - -Li(lst{2,1,3},lst{-numeric(245)/100,-1,1}) in inifcns_test_HLi(), exam_inifcns_nstdsums.cpp:148. I tortured my computer with 1365 calls and here is a histogram of numerical differences between the H and the Li results: [0.00000...1.0e-18[ 4 okay [1.0e-18...1.0e-17[ 530 okay [2.0e-17...3.0e-17[ 503 okay [3.0e-17...4.0e-17[ 232 okay [4.0e-17...5.0e-17[ 74 okay [5.0e-17...6.0e-17[ 18 FAILURE! [6.0e-17...7.0e-17[ 2 FAILURE! [7.0e-17...8.0e-17[ 2 FAILURE!
= 8e-17 - N/A
Would it make sense to raise prec to 10*pow(10,-Digits)? If so, for which tests? Or do you have a better idea? All my best, -richard. [1] <https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ginac&arch=mipsel&ver=1.8.2-1&stamp=1641065269> -- Richard B. Kreckel <https://in.terlu.de/~kreckel/>