| Re: [eigen] again a unit test precision question |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] again a unit test precision question
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 14:05:49 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dRppniWfysHngcTE5d9cHPd7SodRgIKZUaAKczucHiQ=; b=LARmyQsRwpT+rkH+f6FfpZgJ0mY/lxa0Urjh+Yk7cKvom+WTk49bONwVO36q8wgYb6 vVBsfcywBjft5Ica84kh/g/ygi8z381o0GnzxEBQDJ4wGLHZYAP/ucPWm5sRwV6NPjj3 DmbI61kHak0f8sY9uwPFTSMKx/8ce4VB4Qih4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=q7Et6KMLvX4sVeteIQa878Th8QEGL5PUDcgt+UVKeBiWOKbOskCENmkHe8KlQE8/+m N8KEV07epSpLgYyu0Z2pIatYQwP1WwnIEvXktrVkccAvgRnz8CJk0VWa9HKAtF9k/OTc gNVsXFN0ncmj+LsM0pqwjWtgoznCbOWydXNGE=
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2010/7/3 Jitse Niesen <jitse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> I think we should simply change the test along the above lines.
>> Something like
>>
>> VERIFY_IS_MUCH_SMALLER_THAN(m1.sum() - s, Scalar(1));
>
> Yes, this is another way of phrasing the solution you proposed above.
> Whichever you prefer. The first solution above was more of a precision
> test, while this one is much looser (it uses the unit tests default
> precision which is low).
I fixed it and used Jitse's proposal since I was too lazy to write a new macro.
- Haukle