[PATCH][AArch64] update libm-test-ulps

[Szabolcs Nagy]

On 08/04/15 16:53, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> 
>> On 07/04/15 17:55, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> See what I said in 
>>> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-03/msg00756.html>.  You need to 
>>> regenerate *from scratch* every so often (say every release cycle) and the 
>>> presence of *_tonearest entries indicates that the last such from-scratch 
>>> regeneration was a long time ago.
>>
>> i removed the old libm-test-ulps and ran make regen-ulps again
>>
>> is it ok?
> 
> libm-test-ulps regeneration is considered obvious.  (The libm-test.inc 

if i manually have to remove files from the source repository
then it's not obvious..

> code now ensures that ulps don't get added for functions that should have 
> exactly determined results, and that, if added, such ulps are ignored when 
> libm-test-ulps is read.  So, given that code
> 
> #if TEST_COND_ldbl_128ibm
>   /* The documented accuracy of IBM long double division is 3ulp (see
>      libgcc/config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble-format), so do not require
>      better accuracy for libm functions that are exactly defined for
>      other formats.  */
>   max_valid_error = exact ? 3 : 14;
> #else
>   max_valid_error = exact ? 0 : 9;

is more than 9 ulp error considered a bug?
(ie. shall i send bug reports about it?)