This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
False alarm. Our functions work correctly. But anyway I have a separate patch for adding that test cases to "make check" (attached). It does not reveal new fails in current GLIBC, but several 1-ulp new errors on IA. And it does not reveal new fails in our new sinf/cosf functions (and no 1-ulp new errors) 2012-08-16 Liubov Dmitrieva <liubov.dmitrieva@gmail.com> * math/libm-test.inc: Update Add new test cases in large arguments path. So, no need to fix here, both patches are ok. The latest version were attached to: http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-08/msg00267.html http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-08/msg00265.html -- Liubov Dmitrieva 2012/8/15 Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Dmitrieva Liubov wrote: > >> > This code is wrong. You cannot perform argument reduction for large >> > arguments by using a single, double, or even extended-precision >> > approximation for pi. >> >> Yes, that's wrong in x86_32 version and will be fixed but 64 bit >> version looks ok. > > If that didn't get detected by the testsuite, I suppose we should add > 0x1p+120 (or some such value that detects the problem) to the tests for > cos and sin in libm-test.inc. (The larest float value for cos in the > testsuite is 0x1p65; sin also tests 0x1.7f4134p+103.) > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > joseph@codesourcery.com
Attachment:
new_test_cases.patch
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |