This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception
- From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:38:51 +0000
- Subject: [Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-16447-131 at http dot sourceware dot org/bugzilla/>
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16447
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> unsafe = abs(n_i) >= -16363;
Well, abs >= (negative value) doesn't seem right.
To work out what's unsafe, you need to consider how small x22 can be in
cases where ex2_u.d is small. The answer is roughly that x22, if not 0,
is at least 1ulp of the input (not exactly, because of the way values from
a table get subtracted from the input) - so, roughly, you could have
problems up to n_i around -16382 + 113. Certainly saying unsafe = abs
(n_i) >= 15000 should be safe, even allowing for the way x gets adjusted.
> How to handle the unsafe-check?
> Which platform uses this implementation of expl?
> Can we simply change the unsafe-check in sysdeps/iee754 or is a new
> platform-specific implementation required?
The same correction should apply to all platforms using ldbl-128; no
platform-specific implementation should be needed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.