Possible mistake in expf
Fri Jun 12 17:07:00 GMT 2015
I believe I may have stumbled across a minor mistake in the expf()
implementation in newlib's libm.
newlib/libm/mathfp/sf_pow.c:99  is:
> x = exp (t);
However, I don't see why the function exp should be used instead of
expf, as x itself is a single-precision float. At a quick glance I don't
see any reason why this would benefit greatly from the increased
precision the double-precision version of exp would provide, but I'm far
from an expert on this sort of thing. If someone could confirm or refute
my suspicions, that would be appreciated!
More information about the Newlib