[Python-checkins] r71837 - python/trunk/Lib/test/test_math.py

Fri Apr 24 18:34:15 CEST 2009

Author: mark.dickinson
Date: Fri Apr 24 18:34:14 2009
New Revision: 71837
Log:
Issue #5593: Use more robust test for double-rounding in test_fsum.
While we're at it, use new unittest.skipUnless decorator to
implement skipping for that test.
Modified:
 python/trunk/Lib/test/test_math.py
Modified: python/trunk/Lib/test/test_math.py
==============================================================================

--- python/trunk/Lib/test/test_math.py	(original)
+++ python/trunk/Lib/test/test_math.py	Fri Apr 24 18:34:14 2009
@@ -13,6 +13,11 @@
 INF = float('inf')
 NINF = float('-inf')
 
+# detect evidence of double-rounding: fsum is not always correctly
+# rounded on machines that suffer from double rounding.
+x, y = 1e16, 2.9999 # use temporary values to defeat peephole optimizer
+HAVE_DOUBLE_ROUNDING = (x + y == 1e16 + 4)
+
 # locate file with test values
 if __name__ == '__main__':
 file = sys.argv[0]
@@ -364,6 +369,10 @@
 self.assertEquals(math.frexp(NINF)[0], NINF)
 self.assert_(math.isnan(math.frexp(NAN)[0]))
 
+ @unittest.skipUnless(float.__getformat__("double").startswith("IEEE"),
+ "test requires IEEE 754 doubles")
+ @unittest.skipUnless(not HAVE_DOUBLE_ROUNDING,
+ "fsum is not exact on machines with double rounding")
 def testFsum(self):
 # math.fsum relies on exact rounding for correct operation.
 # There's a known problem with IA32 floating-point that causes
@@ -373,14 +382,6 @@
 # problem described in issue #2937, we simply skip the whole
 # test.
 
- if not float.__getformat__("double").startswith("IEEE"):
- return
-
- # on IEEE 754 compliant machines, both of the expressions
- # below should round to 10000000000000002.0.
- if 1e16+2.0 != 1e16+2.9999:
- return
-
 # Python version of math.fsum, for comparison. Uses a
 # different algorithm based on frexp, ldexp and integer
 # arithmetic.
