This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.1.97
- To: Christian Iseli <chris at ludwig-alpha dot unil dot ch>
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.1.97
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:56:00 +0100
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <email@example.com> <200011160917.KAA12263@ludwig-alpha.unil.ch>
- Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:17:38AM +0100, Christian Iseli wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org said:
> > 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.
We'll see, I'm investigating.
> > 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
> > tolerated.
> 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...
Some alpha ulps needed adjustements (but basically just adjusted comments to
the higher precision of long double constants), it is in CVS since Nov 13.
> > 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 ?
Yes, it is in CVS and will be in the next RH rpms too.
> > (with yesterday's binutils patches and alpha dl-machine.h patch posted
> > today).
> Bleeding edge huh ? ;-) You mean HJ released another binutils, or do you use
> the binutils CVS from sourceware ?
I've commited it to sources CVS archive, dunno when H.J. picks it up into
BTW: Richard yesterday commited another 2 alpha bugfixes into binutils...