automatically updating ulps -- any review needed ?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 06 January 2014 10:38:46 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
> > > Note that the checked-in file should be truncated before running "make
> > > regen-ulps", so as to remove old ulps for tests for which errors have
> > > gone down or whose names have changed.
> > 
> > Shouldn't regen-ulps run the tests with --ignore-max-ulp=yes?
> 
> That would only work if the ulps were independent of the compiler and
> hardware in use.  For x86 and x86_64, for example, regeneration for a
> release involves one from-scratch regeneration after truncation, then
> subsequent incremental use of regen-ulps by people who see ulps because of
> different compilers or hardware in use (and similarly, outside of the
> freeze, from-scratch x86 / x86_64 regenerations would unnecessarily
> introduce ulps failures for people with hardware different from that used
> for the last regeneration).

i've updated the wiki page:
 https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Regeneration
(go to the bottom to the Math section)

can you guys give it a look to make sure i didn't screw up horribly ?
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20140107/c7abe20a/attachment.sig>