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: "stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:56:58 +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/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16447
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Liebler <stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com> ---
IÂve posted a patch for the exp testcase (expl(-11342.8125)).
IÂve also tested a wider unsafe-check:
unsafe = abs(n_i) >= -16363;
//unsafe = abs(n_i) >= -LDBL_MIN_EXP - 1;
Then the testcase passes on S/390.
LDBL_MIN_EXP expands to -16381 on S/390.
A small test on S/390 shows that
expl(-11341.99999L) works as expected, but with
expl(-11341.999999L) the result is same as expl(-11342.8125).
In both cases n_i == -16363.
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?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.