New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Random.float #8164
Comments
Comment author: administrator
On the Pentium processor, it is possible for floating-point code to In general, the extended precision of native code doesn't hurt (the This said, Random.float doesn't exhibit cancellation problems (it's Indeed, I just tried the following experiment: generate 10000 random If you have more information that could help us pinpoint the potential Best regards,
|
Comment author: administrator Random.float generates exactly the same floats in bytecode and native. The |
Comment author: administrator
Well, sorry about the long silence, but it's been extremely busy at our end. Frank |
Original bug ID: 1705
Reporter: administrator
Status: closed
Resolution: not a bug
Priority: normal
Severity: minor
Category: ~DO NOT USE (was: OCaml general)
Bug description
Full_Name: Frank Dellaert
Version: 3.06
OS: Linux
Submission from: user-11fa88c.dsl.mindspring.com (66.245.33.12)
Short version: Random.float is probably broken in byte versions of the code.
Long version: we have been seeing qualitative differences between behavior of
byte vs native code whenever we use Random.float. We use Caml for visual
tracking, robot localization, and other probabilistic inference algorithms, so
that's pretty much all over the place. Finally, today, I replaced all our random
generators with stubs to a numerical recipes random number generator, and the
problem went away: native and byte code now behave the same way, in what seems
to be the correct way (like native code behaved before the patch). I can't say
quite for sure, but I suspect your byte code random number generator is broken.
Why there would be any difference at all stumps me, but you might know ?
I can't stress to you enough how serious this bug is, at least to my group (I
have at least 10 people working in Caml): we write papers with results that
heavily depend on a correct random generator...
Best of luck
Frank Dellaert
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: