secnds.f still at it.

[Jerry DeLisle]

Brooks Moses wrote:
> Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> FYI:  As of last night I still get some secnds.f / secnds-1.f failures.
>> I think we do need the _8 on the constants (at least on the 0.001
>> constant).
> 
> I'll have a regression test going for another patch momentarily, so I'll 
> do up a fix to add that, and toss it into the mix.
> 
> Thanks,
> - Brooks
> 
> 
I have been experimenting.  I see on my system that (t1a-t1) always comes out 
zero.  Also, (dat1-t1) comes in a range of +-.005 seconds.  Changing all 
variables and constants to kind=8 makes this fail more often.  I think the test 
needs some sort of tolerance or may need to be redesigned.

Add an outer loop that runs through the program about 100 times and it becomes 
very clear that it fails a lot.  When you have your patch ready, I will test it 
here too.

Jerry