|
> From: Buck > > I realise that this isn't an explanation of why the results are different > between V5R1 and V5R2. It does seem to be a disclaimer that we shouldn't > expect float to be terribly precise, which is a different attribute from > repeatable. And thus from a backwards compatibility standpoint, it's pretty clear that changing exponentiation to use a floating point value (if that's indeed what happened) actually reduced precision. This should have at least been enough to warrant a warning somewhere in the release notes (and there may well have been, I haven't read the release notes for V5R2 yet). Think about it: if indeed exponentiation was changed, and somebody is currently using exponentiation in a production program, that program is now possibly giving erroneous results. That is something IBM has been extremely good about in the past, and is something I'd hope they'd continue to adhere to: "Break no code (and if you do, let the users no in REALLY BIG letters)." Joe
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.