This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
>It just seems that basing the test cases on what the math functions >produce (as is done now in practise, and will be done formally with >your scheme) is doing it the wrong way around. You can make arguments both ways. If the required epsilons are greater than the calculated error margin then clearly something is wrong (in either libc, the compiler or the floatng point system). But it seems that compiler and FP bugs are quite common, and we don't really want "make check" to fail on platforms where the floating point support is substandard. Perhaps it would be worth including two sets; the theoretical values and those that are actually achievable in practice on each platform. Or alternatively with a more sophisticated test suite that allowed for expected failures I suppose this would come out in the wash. What happened to Zack's dejagnu patches? p.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |