This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: k_sinl bug fix for ldbl-128 and ldbl-128ibm
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > > This gives new ULPs on sparc, this is test-ldouble.out:
> >
> > Hopefully it also reduces some ULPs (which is less visible) so being on
> > average better (as was the case when making this fix for ldbl-96).
> >
> > I had the idea last night that this issue only affected k_sinl, but on
> > looking at it again I think k_cosl is affected as well (and k_sincosl,
> > which I didn't pay much attention to because I'm keeping the existing
> > ldbl-96 s_sincosl for now which doesn't use k_sincosl). So I'll post
> > revised versions of both patches that fix those other functions as well.
>
> Like so. The corresponding cosl fix for ldbl-96 reduces the number of
> ulps changes for test-ldouble on x86 from 20 to 16 (fixing sinl having
> reduced the number from 30 to 20). (These are figures in the presence of
> the testsuite changes from the ldbl-96 patch - so include both ULPs for
> tests that patch newly enables as well as ULPs for tests that were already
> being run for long double.)
I have now tested this patch
<http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-03/msg00513.html> for powerpc,
with the existing ulps removed so it's tested fairly rather than on a
basis where whatever random errors the existing code has are expected and
whatever random errors the new code has aren't. With the patch applied,
there were 272 errors in test-ldouble.out compared to 276 without (and two
values for max errors of particular functions went down).
On that basis I think we have further evidence from testing that this is a
sound change - is the patch OK?
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com