I didn't look at the details of the patch for #768090, but the bug log suggests that there are remaining failures. Is that still the case with this patch?
Assuming you mean
yes, it's the same patch so has the same failures: I don't claim this is perfect, just the best we can reasonably do within the freeze rules.The remaining test failures are: -cospi/sinpi/tanpi, powr/pown/pow, tgamma are less accurate than the OpenCL spec requires (at least the first group explicitly use the fast-but-inaccurate path, 2e-5 instead of 1e-8 typical relative error but 10-20x faster; one reason 0.9 is "faster" is that it has sin/cos/tan do the same by default). -sub_bufffer_check sometimes crashes.
In current upstream (1.0), the crash is gone and a non-default "strict conformance" mode is added where cospi/sinpi/tanpi meet the accuracy standard, but powr/pown/pow and tgamma still fail.
Please don't do that: I'd rather have a temporary ~really than a (permanent) epoch.you can use a version like 1:0.8+dfsg-1 in unstable if you don't like 0.9.3~really.0.8+dfsg-1