This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH][AArch64] update libm-test-ulps
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Marcus Shawcroft <Marcus dot Shawcroft at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 15:53:43 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][AArch64] update libm-test-ulps
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5523BAB1 dot 5020700 at arm dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1504071654120 dot 20250 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <55254CF4 dot 8060508 at arm dot com>
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 07/04/15 17:55, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > See what I said in
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-03/msg00756.html>. You need to
> > regenerate *from scratch* every so often (say every release cycle) and the
> > presence of *_tonearest entries indicates that the last such from-scratch
> > regeneration was a long time ago.
>
> i removed the old libm-test-ulps and ran make regen-ulps again
>
> is it ok?
libm-test-ulps regeneration is considered obvious. (The libm-test.inc
code now ensures that ulps don't get added for functions that should have
exactly determined results, and that, if added, such ulps are ignored when
libm-test-ulps is read. So, given that code
#if TEST_COND_ldbl_128ibm
/* The documented accuracy of IBM long double division is 3ulp (see
libgcc/config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble-format), so do not require
better accuracy for libm functions that are exactly defined for
other formats. */
max_valid_error = exact ? 3 : 14;
#else
max_valid_error = exact ? 0 : 9;
#endif
there's no real possibility of a bad libm-test-ulps update as long as you
use "make regen-ulps" rather than trying to update it manually.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com