Hello,

2011/9/13 Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch / tiscali.cz>:
> Please first see the commit [1] and then tell me why the original test ca=
se should fail? Actually it fails on i386 and succeeds on x86_64 which is a=
 bit suspicious. So I dig a bit deeper with my colleagues and we found that=
 the test was just fine, but the implementation has issues on i386. This sh=
ould be hopefully fixed with patch attached to this issue [2]. More detaile=
d explanation can be found in Red Hat bugzilla [3].


Vit, did you run Test E in the original ticket in Red Hat buzilla?
Indeed, Tests A--D and F behave as you expected with your patch applied:

  $ ./miniruby -e 'p (1.0...9.4).step(1.2).to_a'
  [1.0, 2.2, 3.4, 4.6, 5.8, 7.0, 8.2]
  $ ./miniruby -e 'p (1.0...6.4).step(1.8).to_a'
  [1.0, 2.8, 4.6]
  $ ./miniruby -e 'p (1.0...7.3).step(2.1).to_a'
  [1.0, 3.1, 5.2]
  $ ./miniruby -e 'p (1.0...7.6).step(2.2).to_a'
  [1.0, 3.2, 5.4]
  $ ./miniruby -e 'p (1.0...146.6).step(18.2).to_a'
  [1.0, 19.2, 37.4, 55.599999999999994, 73.8, 92.0,
110.19999999999999, 128.39999999999998]

However, Test E still looks like "apparently wrong" on my i386:

  $ ./miniruby -e 'p (1.0...128.4).step(18.2).to_a'
  [1.0, 19.2, 37.4, 55.599999999999994, 73.8, 92.0,
110.19999999999999, 128.39999999999998]

--=20
Yusuke Endoh <mame / tsg.ne.jp>