From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 29 02:40:10 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD95C106566C; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:40:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Received: from wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A3D8FC0C; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6T2e4uR005731; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:40:04 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Message-ID: <5014A284.2060204@missouri.edu> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 21:40:04 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Evans References: <201207281550.q6SFoBdC073014@freefall.freebsd.org> <20120729121443.M1008@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20120729121443.M1008@besplex.bde.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, Stephen Montgomery-Smith Subject: Re: bin/170206: complex arcsinh, log, etc. X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 02:40:10 -0000 On 07/28/2012 09:31 PM, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > >> OK. This clog really seems to work. >> >> x*x + y*y - 1 is computed with a ULP less than 0.8. The rest of the >> errors seem to be due to the implementation of log1p. The ULP of the >> final answer seems to be never bigger than a little over 2. > > I really don't like this version. If we want bignums and slowness, we > can use lib[g]mp or even exec a mostly-interactive calculator (bc for > portability, closed-source bigware for unportability). > > This version would have been useful in development to verify that the > doubled or tripled floating point was as exact as intended. Now writing > it in your favourite interactive calculator is easiest, except for the > problem of comparing the results. I can understand your reticence. I'll let you work some more on clog, and I will concentrate on the catrig stuff. But did you see that I messed up my earlier error analysis of log1p(1+x)? Also, if I had a log1pl, I would have used that.