Update tests to take promote_double policy into account#1214
Open
rdoeffinger wants to merge 1 commit intoboostorg:developfrom
Open
Update tests to take promote_double policy into account#1214rdoeffinger wants to merge 1 commit intoboostorg:developfrom
rdoeffinger wants to merge 1 commit intoboostorg:developfrom
Conversation
b439120 to
fce31eb
Compare
c4041a8 to
22f5653
Compare
Makes it easier to change its default to false in the future. Only adapting test_policy_8.cpp is now necessary to make tests pass after changing the default to false.
22f5653 to
c71cda7
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
I am unable to see a connection between the test failures and this change... |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Makes it easier to change its default to false in the future. The remaining failing tests are test_nc_chi_squared test_bessel_j_prime and test_bessel_y_prime.
They probably have incorrect logic for the double == long double case already now.