Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:32:37 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: long double broken on i386? Message-ID: <20071002173237.GA12586@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20071002172317.GA95181@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <20070928152227.GA39233@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20071001173736.U1985@besplex.bde.org> <20071002001154.GA3782@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20071002172317.GA95181@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:23:18PM -0400, David Schultz wrote: > > 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. Hi David, There are a few problems: 1) I don't have commit access. 2) I need to do style(9) clean-up pass. 3) I've only tested these on i386 and amd64, and I know these fail for sparc64. 4) Most importantly, I don't know how the project wants to handle the 53 vs 64 bit default fpu setting on i386. PS: There is also the minor possibility of giving bde either a heartache or death via laughter when he finally sees what I have done. :) -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071002173237.GA12586>