This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: k_sinl bug fix for ldbl-128 and ldbl-128ibm


On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 22:31:36 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> 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?

Thanks for the additional atesting - it's fine for me,

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
  SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
    GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]