Test for math.* exceptional behavior only in verbose mode, so that the
oddball platforms (where, e.g., math.exp(+huge) still fails to raise
OverflowError) don't fail the std test suite when run normally.
diff --git a/Lib/test/test_math.py b/Lib/test/test_math.py
index 1452035..b7fde0a 100644
--- a/Lib/test/test_math.py
+++ b/Lib/test/test_math.py
@@ -153,33 +153,43 @@
testit('tanh(0)', math.tanh(0), 0)
testit('tanh(1)+tanh(-1)', math.tanh(1)+math.tanh(-1), 0)
-print 'exceptions' # oooooh, *this* is a x-platform gamble! good luck
+# RED_FLAG 16-Oct-2000 Tim
+# While 2.0 is more consistent about exceptions than previous releases, it
+# still fails this part of the test on some platforms. For now, we only
+# *run* test_exceptions() in verbose mode, so that this isn't normally
+# tested.
-try:
- x = math.exp(-1000000000)
-except:
- # mathmodule.c is failing to weed out underflows from libm, or
- # we've got an fp format with huge dynamic range
- raise TestFailed("underflowing exp() should not have rasied an exception")
-if x != 0:
- raise TestFailed("underflowing exp() should have returned 0")
+def test_exceptions():
+ print 'exceptions'
+ try:
+ x = math.exp(-1000000000)
+ except:
+ # mathmodule.c is failing to weed out underflows from libm, or
+ # we've got an fp format with huge dynamic range
+ raise TestFailed("underflowing exp() should not have raised "
+ "an exception")
+ if x != 0:
+ raise TestFailed("underflowing exp() should have returned 0")
-# If this fails, probably using a strict IEEE-754 conforming libm, and x
-# is +Inf afterwards. But Python wants overflows detected by default.
-try:
- x = math.exp(1000000000)
-except OverflowError:
- pass
-else:
- raise TestFailed("overflowing exp() didn't trigger OverflowError")
+ # If this fails, probably using a strict IEEE-754 conforming libm, and x
+ # is +Inf afterwards. But Python wants overflows detected by default.
+ try:
+ x = math.exp(1000000000)
+ except OverflowError:
+ pass
+ else:
+ raise TestFailed("overflowing exp() didn't trigger OverflowError")
-# If this fails, it could be a puzzle. One odd possibility is that
-# mathmodule.c's CHECK() macro is getting confused while comparing
-# Inf (HUGE_VAL) to a NaN, and artificially setting errno to ERANGE
-# as a result (and so raising OverflowError instead).
-try:
- x = math.sqrt(-1.0)
-except ValueError:
- pass
-else:
- raise TestFailed("sqrt(-1) didn't raise ValueError")
+ # If this fails, it could be a puzzle. One odd possibility is that
+ # mathmodule.c's CHECK() macro is getting confused while comparing
+ # Inf (HUGE_VAL) to a NaN, and artificially setting errno to ERANGE
+ # as a result (and so raising OverflowError instead).
+ try:
+ x = math.sqrt(-1.0)
+ except ValueError:
+ pass
+ else:
+ raise TestFailed("sqrt(-1) didn't raise ValueError")
+
+if verbose:
+ test_exceptions()