This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.1.97
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.1.97
- From: Christian Iseli <chris at ludwig-alpha dot unil dot ch>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:17:38 +0100
- cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
> printf_fphex is only miscompiled with -mcpu=ev4/-mcpu=ev5 AFAIK. I'll
> try to look into it soon (unless Richard beats me to do that).
I'm pretty sure I had it miscompiled with -mcpu=ev56 too.
> Please don't. Errors like 156 ulps should not be in libm-test-ulps, it
> is a bug to compute it with such errors, not something that should be
Ok. I had no idea what the upper limit should be, and (probably wrongly)
guessed it would vary depending on the kind of function evaluated. Last time
I asked on the list, I was told that the errors in math test on alpha were
expected, and I (again, probably wrongly) assumed they were "normal" and could
be dealt with by adjusting the expected results...
> Please make sure you have Richard's sqrt fixes in the
> compiler (or compile e_sqrt.c with -O1).
Did the fix get included in GCC CVS yet ?
> (with yesterday's binutils patches and alpha dl-machine.h patch posted
Bleeding edge huh ? ;-) You mean HJ released another binutils, or do you use
the binutils CVS from sourceware ?