Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:23:18 -0400 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: long double broken on i386? Message-ID: <20071002172317.GA95181@VARK.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20071002001154.GA3782@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20070928152227.GA39233@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20071001173736.U1985@besplex.bde.org> <20071002001154.GA3782@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just a quick note... Although it would be nice to get all this stuff right the first time, very few people are going to care if our trig functions are accurate to within 1 ulp for huge inputs; many competing math libraries don't guarantee that anyway. A programmer who asks for sinl(1000000000*PI + 0.01) is going to be disappointed regardless, because you can't represent the input accurately using IEEE-754 floating point. Most people just care about taking a program that uses sinl() and getting it to compile and run on FreeBSD, and most of those programs don't call sinl() with huge arguments. Anyway, my point is that if you have something that works reasonably well and doesn't have egregious errors, my suggestion is to just commit it and not kill yourself over whether the argument reduction is correct in the last ulp.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071002172317.GA95181>