commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gilles (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (MATH-1422) How accurate is FastMath javadoc?
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2017 19:53:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-1422?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16061430#comment-16061430
] 

Gilles commented on MATH-1422:
------------------------------

Generally speaking it has never been true; see those still open issues:
* MATH-740
* MATH-901
* MATH-1113

Those benchmarks were performed with homegrown micro-benchmark codes (see {{PerfTestUtils}}
class in the "test" part of the code repository).
It is a good idea to create benchmarks based on JMH. Contributions welcome.

> How accurate is FastMath javadoc?
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MATH-1422
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-1422
>             Project: Commons Math
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Roman Leventov
>
> Javadoc to FastMath states that it is a "faster, more accurate alternative to java.lang.Math"
since at least 2012: https://github.com/apache/commons-math/blob/696be68b5dc8872a818a24d8a377158314b54e31/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math3/util/FastMath.java
> How accurate is this assertion in 2017, Java 8?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

Mime
View raw message