This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Long double complex methods




On 6/29/2017 11:18 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017, Joel Sherrill wrote:

Also, although I don't know how to run them, doesn't someone
run glibc tests on newlib? They likely have tests for this for
newlib's purposes.

It would be interesting to see results of glibc libm tests (current git
please, there have been major changes since the last release) for a range
of libm implementations and operating systems, but also probably a lot of
work to get them building with other C libraries; they make plenty of use
of glibc features, include some internal glibc headers for configuration
of some details of the architecture, and hardcode glibc choices of goals
for errno, exceptions and accuracy that other libm implementations may
differ on.  An implementation/architecture-specific libm-test-ulps file
also needs to be generated before you can expect clean results even for an
implementation following glibc's goals.


That would be interesting. In theory, we should be able to mimic the
internal glibc .h files. The devil is in the detail.

My first order problem is that I have never seen the procedure for running
glibc tests against a newlib based toolset for any newlib target -- embedded,
Cygwin, or Linux.

Heck.. as I posted earlier, I don't even know what to do to run the
tests inside the newlib tree. :(

-joel


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]