This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: The state of glibc libm
- From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc at vinc17 dot org>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Geert Bosch <bosch at adacore dot com>,Christoph Lauter <christoph dot lauter at lip6 dot fr>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:30:45 +0100
- Subject: Re: The state of glibc libm
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1202291655580.7156@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On 2012-02-29 17:17:17 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> (a) Most libm functions are not correctly rounded - and do not make an
> attempt at being correctly rounded.
>
> A full fix would likely require new (automatically generated and tuned)
> implementations such as proposed at
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-02/msg00298.html>. As I understand it,
> correct rounding (proved correct) is generally feasible for functions of
> one binary32, binary64 or x86 extended argument. For functions of two
> arguments, or one binary128 argument, it may not be feasible to search for
> worst cases for correct rounding, although it may be possible to produce
> implementations that are "probably" correctly rounding. For functions of
> complex arguments or IBM long double, correct rounding may be less
> feasible (even complex multiplication and division, and all of +-*/ on IBM
> long double, are not correctly rounding, and correct rounding isn't so
> well-defined for IBM long double with its possibility of discontiguous
> mantissa bits).
For double-double (IBM long double), I don't think the notion of
correct rounding makes much sense anyway. Actually the double-double
arithmetic is mainly useful for the basic operations in order to be
able to implement elementary functions accurately (first step in
Ziv's strategy, possibly a second step as well). IMHO, on such a
platform, if expl() (for instance) just calls exp(), this is OK.
> (b) Where functions do make attempts at being correctly rounded
> (especially the IBM Accurate Mathematical Library functions), they tend to
> be sufficiently slow that the slowness attracts bug reports. Again, this
> would likely be addressed by new implementations that use careful error
> bounds and information about worst cases to reduce the cost of being
> correctly rounding.
I'm not sure that the complaints are about worst cases. More probably
software implementation vs hardware implementation in the average
case. But a new software implementation (better in average) could
help.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)