Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:51:06 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Mark Murray <markm@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What to do about tgammal? Message-ID: <20211214215106.GA50381@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <813F29E3-8478-4282-9518-5943DE7B5492@FreeBSD.org> References: <20211204185352.GA20452@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <E5711C71-1095-4B6B-A33A-4CDFF123AB62@FreeBSD.org> <20211213022223.GA41440@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <813F29E3-8478-4282-9518-5943DE7B5492@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 06:26:13PM +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > This is now visible for review at > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33444 <https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33444>; > I see imp lamented that that fact that he is not sufficiently versed in the numerical methods used (neither am I!). bde use to be my go-to reviewer, but he's no longer with us. To allay fears, I've tested 5 million values distributed in the intervals of the various approximations. Here's the result Interval max ULP x at Max ULP [6,1755.1] 0.873414 at 1.480588145237629047468e+03 [1.0662,6] 0.861508 at 1.999467927053585410537e+00 [1.01e-17,1.0661] 0.938041 at 1.023286481537296307856e+00 [-1.9999,-1.0001] 3.157770 at -1.246957268051453610329e+00 [-2.9999,-2.0001] 2.987659 at -2.220949465449893090070e+00 Note, 1.01e-17 can be reduced to soemthing like 1.01e-19 or 1.01e-20. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20211214215106.GA50381>