This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] New numbers in the benchtests.
On Sat, 16 Dec 2017, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> You're right in that specific inputs (or rather results) are more
> important than others due to the number of bits required to ensure a
> correct rounding regardless of the algorithm used. However, they assume
And such a correct rounding is not part of the accuracy goals for
functions such as exp (only for a few functions such as sqrt and fma that
are directly bound to IEEE 754 operations).
This does not rule out support for TS 18661-4 reserved function names such
as crexp, though that was not part of my TS 18661-4 proposal. If based on
exhaustive searches for worst cases for correct rounding, such
implementations would not actually need anywhere near the number of bits
used by the old exp implementation in glibc.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com