[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: glibc 2.2: math test failures

From: Michael Deutschmann
Subject: Re: glibc 2.2: math test failures
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:25:57 -0800 (PST)

On 13 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> The math functions are not specified up to the last bit.  Therefore we
> allow some errors - but we don't want to make that error range too
> large.
> did you check the manual?  We've got a section on "Known Maximum
> Errors in Math Functions".

Actually I tried -- I was looking for precisely that information, but
missed that section.  I grepped on "accuracy", and missed it.  I suggest
you add "@cindex accuracy, floating point math" to the section.

Still, the information in the section is not very useful.  It's only a
look at the accuracy we *seem* to be getting at the moment.  If your
policy is to just widen them as you discover new cases, or new problem
CPUs, then it's not a trustable long-term guide.

What I'd want to know, if I was writing numeric software, is *not* the ULP
you are presently getting with the CPU-of-the-month.  I'd want to know the
level of ULP that would cause you to take drastic action to correct the
problem.  A guaranteed maximum error, if you will.

(By drastic action, I mean publicly declaring that you do not support a
problematic CPU, or rewriting the library function do the operation "by
hand", just eating the likely ~100x slowdown.)

I would think the ANSI/ISO standards should give some maximal error don't
they -- to stop a pathological implementor from approximating cos() with
a constant function....  You should comment on that, for those trying to 
write portable code.

---- Michael Deutschmann <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]