[PATCH] New numbers in the benchtests.

[Joseph Myers]

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