Skip Menu |

This queue is for tickets about the Math-BigInt CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 130720
Status: open
Priority: 0/
Queue: Math-BigInt

Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: ANDK [...]

Bug Information
Severity: (no value)
Broken in: 1.999817
Fixed in: (no value)

Subject: 1.999817 breaks the tests of CryptX, Math-BigInt-Lite, and Math-Counting
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 408b
As per subject. Involved distros: MIK/CryptX-0.064.tar.gz GJACKLAM/Math-BigInt-Lite-0.18.tar.gz MENE/Math-Counting-0.1305.tar.gz A sample fail report for CryptX: (at the moment not reachable). Sample fail reports for Math-BigInt-Lite and Math-Counting are currently not publicly available, since cpantesters has a major outage.
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 147b
Thanks for notifying me! I tested Math-BigInt-1.999817 against Math-BigInt-Lite, so that is a fail that suprises me. Anyway, I will look into this.
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 755b
All failed tests in CryptX, Math-BigInt-Lite, and Math-Counting are due to a change in the bpow() method (and the overloaded ** operator) regarding non-integer results. When a Math::BigInt operation results in a non-integer, the output is either truncated (i.e., rounded towards zero) or upgraded, if upgrading is enabled. The bpow() method did not adhere to this and returned NaN for things like 2**(-3). Compare this to explicitly computing 1/8, which returned 0. In 1.999817 this inconsistency was removed. So now, 2**(-3) and 1/(2**3) give the same result, i.e., 0. I consider this change in Math-BigInt to be a bug fix. I suggest the test suits for CryptX, Math-BigInt-Lite, and Math-Counting are updated to reflect this improvement of Math-BigInt.
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 125b
Could you find out why your own testing with Math-BigInt-Lite did not fail? Maybe there's something hidden below the surface?
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 395b
On Fri Oct 18 22:52:55 2019, ANDK wrote: Show quoted text
> Could you find out why your own testing with Math-BigInt-Lite did not > fail? Maybe there's something hidden below the surface?
I was unfortunately testing against my private Math-BigInt-Lite repo, which had been modified since the 0.18 release to reflect the changes to bpow()/**. When I test against the 0.18 release I see all the same failed tests.
Thanks for the heads up. Fixed in Math-Counting-0.1306 now. - GENE

This service is sponsored and maintained by Best Practical Solutions and runs on infrastructure.

Please report any issues with to