newlines fixed

git-svn-id: svn://svn.icculus.org/quake3/trunk@6 edf5b092-35ff-0310-97b2-ce42778d08ea

1 files changed, 195 insertions, 195 deletions

diff --git a/lcc/alpha/osf/tst/paranoia.1bk b/lcc/alpha/osf/tst/paranoia.1bk
index c74a883..d947458 100755
--- a/lcc/alpha/osf/tst/paranoia.1bk
+++ b/lcc/alpha/osf/tst/paranoia.1bk
@@ -1,195 +1,195 @@
-Lest this program stop prematurely, i.e. before displaying

-

-    `END OF TEST',

-

-try to persuade the computer NOT to terminate execution when an

-error like Over/Underflow or Division by Zero occurs, but rather

-to persevere with a surrogate value after, perhaps, displaying some

-warning.  If persuasion avails naught, don't despair but run this

-program anyway to see how many milestones it passes, and then

-amend it to make further progress.

-

-Answer questions with Y, y, N or n (unless otherwise indicated).

-

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 0          Page: 1

-

-Users are invited to help debug and augment this program so it will

-cope with unanticipated and newly uncovered arithmetic pathologies.

-

-Please send suggestions and interesting results to

-	Richard Karpinski

-	Computer Center U-76

-	University of California

-	San Francisco, CA 94143-0704, USA

-

-In doing so, please include the following information:

-	Precision:	double;

-	Version:	10 February 1989;

-	Computer:

-

-	Compiler:

-

-	Optimization level:

-

-	Other relevant compiler options:

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 1          Page: 2

-

-Running this program should reveal these characteristics:

-     Radix = 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 100, 256 ...

-     Precision = number of significant digits carried.

-     U2 = Radix/Radix^Precision = One Ulp

-	(OneUlpnit in the Last Place) of 1.000xxx .

-     U1 = 1/Radix^Precision = One Ulp of numbers a little less than 1.0 .

-     Adequacy of guard digits for Mult., Div. and Subt.

-     Whether arithmetic is chopped, correctly rounded, or something else

-	for Mult., Div., Add/Subt. and Sqrt.

-     Whether a Sticky Bit used correctly for rounding.

-     UnderflowThreshold = an underflow threshold.

-     E0 and PseudoZero tell whether underflow is abrupt, gradual, or fuzzy.

-     V = an overflow threshold, roughly.

-     V0  tells, roughly, whether  Infinity  is represented.

-     Comparisions are checked for consistency with subtraction

-	and for contamination with pseudo-zeros.

-     Sqrt is tested.  Y^X is not tested.

-     Extra-precise subexpressions are revealed but NOT YET tested.

-     Decimal-Binary conversion is NOT YET tested for accuracy.

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 2          Page: 3

-

-The program attempts to discriminate among

-   FLAWs, like lack of a sticky bit,

-   Serious DEFECTs, like lack of a guard digit, and

-   FAILUREs, like 2+2 == 5 .

-Failures may confound subsequent diagnoses.

-

-The diagnostic capabilities of this program go beyond an earlier

-program called `MACHAR', which can be found at the end of the

-book  `Software Manual for the Elementary Functions' (1980) by

-W. J. Cody and W. Waite. Although both programs try to discover

-the Radix, Precision and range (over/underflow thresholds)

-of the arithmetic, this program tries to cope with a wider variety

-of pathologies, and to say how well the arithmetic is implemented.

-

-The program is based upon a conventional radix representation for

-floating-point numbers, but also allows logarithmic encoding

-as used by certain early WANG machines.

-

-BASIC version of this program (C) 1983 by Prof. W. M. Kahan;

-see source comments for more history.

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 3          Page: 4

-

-Program is now RUNNING tests on small integers:

--1, 0, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 27, 32 & 240 are O.K.

-

-Searching for Radix and Precision.

-Radix = 2.000000 .

-Closest relative separation found is U1 = 1.1102230e-16 .

-

-Recalculating radix and precision

- confirms closest relative separation U1 .

-Radix confirmed.

-The number of significant digits of the Radix is 53.000000 .

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 30          Page: 5

-

-Subtraction appears to be normalized, as it should be.

-Checking for guard digit in *, /, and -.

-     *, /, and - appear to have guard digits, as they should.

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 40          Page: 6

-

-Checking rounding on multiply, divide and add/subtract.

-Multiplication appears to round correctly.

-Division appears to round correctly.

-Addition/Subtraction appears to round correctly.

-Checking for sticky bit.

-Sticky bit apparently used correctly.

-

-Does Multiplication commute?  Testing on 20 random pairs.

-     No failures found in 20 integer pairs.

-

-Running test of square root(x).

-Testing if sqrt(X * X) == X for 20 Integers X.

-Test for sqrt monotonicity.

-sqrt has passed a test for Monotonicity.

-Testing whether sqrt is rounded or chopped.

-Square root appears to be correctly rounded.

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 90          Page: 7

-

-Testing powers Z^i for small Integers Z and i.

-... no discrepancis found.

-

-Seeking Underflow thresholds UfThold and E0.

-Smallest strictly positive number found is E0 = 2.22507e-308 .

-Since comparison denies Z = 0, evaluating (Z + Z) / Z should be safe.

-What the machine gets for (Z + Z) / Z is  2.00000000000000000e+00 .

-This is O.K., provided Over/Underflow has NOT just been signaled.

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 120          Page: 8

-

-

-FLAW:  X = 3.05947655544740190e-308

-	is not equal to Z = 2.22507385850720140e-308 .

-yet X - Z yields 0.00000000000000000e+00 .

-    Should this NOT signal Underflow, this is a SERIOUS DEFECT

-that causes confusion when innocent statements like

-    if (X == Z)  ...  else  ... (f(X) - f(Z)) / (X - Z) ...

-encounter Division by Zero although actually

-X / Z = 1 + 0.375 .

-The Underflow threshold is 2.22507385850720140e-308,  below which

-calculation may suffer larger Relative error than merely roundoff.

-Since underflow occurs below the threshold

-UfThold = (2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03)

-only underflow should afflict the expression

-	(2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03);

-actually calculating yields: 0.00000000000000000e+00 .

-This computed value is O.K.

-

-Testing X^((X + 1) / (X - 1)) vs. exp(2) = 7.38905609893065220e+00 as X -> 1.

-Accuracy seems adequate.

-Testing powers Z^Q at four nearly extreme values.

- ... no discrepancies found.

-

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 160          Page: 9

-

-Searching for Overflow threshold:

-This may generate an error.

-

-* * * FLOATING-POINT ERROR * * *

-Can `Z = -Y' overflow?

-Trying it on Y = -8.98846567431157950e+307 .

-Seems O.K.

-Overflow threshold is V  = 1.79769313486231570e+308 .

-There is no saturation value because the system traps on overflow.

-No Overflow should be signaled for V * 1 = 1.79769313486231570e+308

-                           nor for V / 1 = 1.79769313486231570e+308 .

-Any overflow signal separating this * from the one

-above is a DEFECT.

-

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 190          Page: 10

-

-

-What message and/or values does Division by Zero produce?

-    Trying to compute 1 / 0 produces ...

-* * * FLOATING-POINT ERROR * * *

-

-    Trying to compute 0 / 0 produces ...

-* * * FLOATING-POINT ERROR * * *

-

-Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 220          Page: 11

-

-

-

-No failures, defects nor flaws have been discovered.

-Rounding appears to conform to the proposed IEEE standard P754,

-except for possibly Double Rounding during Gradual Underflow.

-The arithmetic diagnosed appears to be Excellent!

-

-A total of 3 floating point exceptions were registered.

-END OF TEST.

+Lest this program stop prematurely, i.e. before displaying
+
+    `END OF TEST',
+
+try to persuade the computer NOT to terminate execution when an
+error like Over/Underflow or Division by Zero occurs, but rather
+to persevere with a surrogate value after, perhaps, displaying some
+warning.  If persuasion avails naught, don't despair but run this
+program anyway to see how many milestones it passes, and then
+amend it to make further progress.
+
+Answer questions with Y, y, N or n (unless otherwise indicated).
+
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 0          Page: 1
+
+Users are invited to help debug and augment this program so it will
+cope with unanticipated and newly uncovered arithmetic pathologies.
+
+Please send suggestions and interesting results to
+	Richard Karpinski
+	Computer Center U-76
+	University of California
+	San Francisco, CA 94143-0704, USA
+
+In doing so, please include the following information:
+	Precision:	double;
+	Version:	10 February 1989;
+	Computer:
+
+	Compiler:
+
+	Optimization level:
+
+	Other relevant compiler options:
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 1          Page: 2
+
+Running this program should reveal these characteristics:
+     Radix = 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 100, 256 ...
+     Precision = number of significant digits carried.
+     U2 = Radix/Radix^Precision = One Ulp
+	(OneUlpnit in the Last Place) of 1.000xxx .
+     U1 = 1/Radix^Precision = One Ulp of numbers a little less than 1.0 .
+     Adequacy of guard digits for Mult., Div. and Subt.
+     Whether arithmetic is chopped, correctly rounded, or something else
+	for Mult., Div., Add/Subt. and Sqrt.
+     Whether a Sticky Bit used correctly for rounding.
+     UnderflowThreshold = an underflow threshold.
+     E0 and PseudoZero tell whether underflow is abrupt, gradual, or fuzzy.
+     V = an overflow threshold, roughly.
+     V0  tells, roughly, whether  Infinity  is represented.
+     Comparisions are checked for consistency with subtraction
+	and for contamination with pseudo-zeros.
+     Sqrt is tested.  Y^X is not tested.
+     Extra-precise subexpressions are revealed but NOT YET tested.
+     Decimal-Binary conversion is NOT YET tested for accuracy.
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 2          Page: 3
+
+The program attempts to discriminate among
+   FLAWs, like lack of a sticky bit,
+   Serious DEFECTs, like lack of a guard digit, and
+   FAILUREs, like 2+2 == 5 .
+Failures may confound subsequent diagnoses.
+
+The diagnostic capabilities of this program go beyond an earlier
+program called `MACHAR', which can be found at the end of the
+book  `Software Manual for the Elementary Functions' (1980) by
+W. J. Cody and W. Waite. Although both programs try to discover
+the Radix, Precision and range (over/underflow thresholds)
+of the arithmetic, this program tries to cope with a wider variety
+of pathologies, and to say how well the arithmetic is implemented.
+
+The program is based upon a conventional radix representation for
+floating-point numbers, but also allows logarithmic encoding
+as used by certain early WANG machines.
+
+BASIC version of this program (C) 1983 by Prof. W. M. Kahan;
+see source comments for more history.
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 3          Page: 4
+
+Program is now RUNNING tests on small integers:
+-1, 0, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 27, 32 & 240 are O.K.
+
+Searching for Radix and Precision.
+Radix = 2.000000 .
+Closest relative separation found is U1 = 1.1102230e-16 .
+
+Recalculating radix and precision
+ confirms closest relative separation U1 .
+Radix confirmed.
+The number of significant digits of the Radix is 53.000000 .
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 30          Page: 5
+
+Subtraction appears to be normalized, as it should be.
+Checking for guard digit in *, /, and -.
+     *, /, and - appear to have guard digits, as they should.
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 40          Page: 6
+
+Checking rounding on multiply, divide and add/subtract.
+Multiplication appears to round correctly.
+Division appears to round correctly.
+Addition/Subtraction appears to round correctly.
+Checking for sticky bit.
+Sticky bit apparently used correctly.
+
+Does Multiplication commute?  Testing on 20 random pairs.
+     No failures found in 20 integer pairs.
+
+Running test of square root(x).
+Testing if sqrt(X * X) == X for 20 Integers X.
+Test for sqrt monotonicity.
+sqrt has passed a test for Monotonicity.
+Testing whether sqrt is rounded or chopped.
+Square root appears to be correctly rounded.
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 90          Page: 7
+
+Testing powers Z^i for small Integers Z and i.
+... no discrepancis found.
+
+Seeking Underflow thresholds UfThold and E0.
+Smallest strictly positive number found is E0 = 2.22507e-308 .
+Since comparison denies Z = 0, evaluating (Z + Z) / Z should be safe.
+What the machine gets for (Z + Z) / Z is  2.00000000000000000e+00 .
+This is O.K., provided Over/Underflow has NOT just been signaled.
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 120          Page: 8
+
+
+FLAW:  X = 3.05947655544740190e-308
+	is not equal to Z = 2.22507385850720140e-308 .
+yet X - Z yields 0.00000000000000000e+00 .
+    Should this NOT signal Underflow, this is a SERIOUS DEFECT
+that causes confusion when innocent statements like
+    if (X == Z)  ...  else  ... (f(X) - f(Z)) / (X - Z) ...
+encounter Division by Zero although actually
+X / Z = 1 + 0.375 .
+The Underflow threshold is 2.22507385850720140e-308,  below which
+calculation may suffer larger Relative error than merely roundoff.
+Since underflow occurs below the threshold
+UfThold = (2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03)
+only underflow should afflict the expression
+	(2.00000000000000000e+00) ^ (-1.02200000000000000e+03);
+actually calculating yields: 0.00000000000000000e+00 .
+This computed value is O.K.
+
+Testing X^((X + 1) / (X - 1)) vs. exp(2) = 7.38905609893065220e+00 as X -> 1.
+Accuracy seems adequate.
+Testing powers Z^Q at four nearly extreme values.
+ ... no discrepancies found.
+
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 160          Page: 9
+
+Searching for Overflow threshold:
+This may generate an error.
+
+* * * FLOATING-POINT ERROR * * *
+Can `Z = -Y' overflow?
+Trying it on Y = -8.98846567431157950e+307 .
+Seems O.K.
+Overflow threshold is V  = 1.79769313486231570e+308 .
+There is no saturation value because the system traps on overflow.
+No Overflow should be signaled for V * 1 = 1.79769313486231570e+308
+                           nor for V / 1 = 1.79769313486231570e+308 .
+Any overflow signal separating this * from the one
+above is a DEFECT.
+
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 190          Page: 10
+
+
+What message and/or values does Division by Zero produce?
+    Trying to compute 1 / 0 produces ...
+* * * FLOATING-POINT ERROR * * *
+
+    Trying to compute 0 / 0 produces ...
+* * * FLOATING-POINT ERROR * * *
+
+Diagnosis resumes after milestone Number 220          Page: 11
+
+
+
+No failures, defects nor flaws have been discovered.
+Rounding appears to conform to the proposed IEEE standard P754,
+except for possibly Double Rounding during Gradual Underflow.
+The arithmetic diagnosed appears to be Excellent!
+
+A total of 3 floating point exceptions were registered.
+END OF TEST.