>
> > I have now a regression test for the NUMERIC data
> > type. Should I add it or is it too late?
>
> Add it. I'll help test. We'll ask Mark about it later ;)
O.K. - it's in place.
I've added 2 tests for NUMERIC. One that is performed by
default on target 'runtest'. This one uses 100 digits after
the decimal point. It causes the entire regression suite to
take now 2.5 times longer than before.
The other one is mainly the same test, just with other values
and this time 1000 digits after the decimal point. This one
is added to the end of the regression suite if the make
target 'bigtest' is used.
Both stress the CPU havily by calculating square roots,
logarithms and power to the wanted precision. I don't have
any clue how many internal add, subtract, multiply and divide
cycles they cause - all the complex functions are based on
Taylor/McLaurin. But it must be some hundreds.
All expected results have been precalculated with bc(1) using
a slightly higher precision. So you shouldn't have to check
ALL the numerical results in the 250K numeric_big test by
hand - maybe you do it anyway just to be sure that there is
not one single difference of 10^^-1000 :-)
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #