This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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] |
Ping. SSE2 sin and cos patches (up to 10 times faster) are waiting for review and my patch with new test cases as well. I've attached all 3 again (the same as last time) #1 2012-08-16 Liubov Dmitrieva <liubov.dmitrieva@gmail.com> * math/libm-test.inc: Update Add new test cases in large arguments path. #2 2012-08-13 Liubov Dmitrieva <liubov.dmitrieva@gmail.com> * sysdeps/i386/i686/fpu/multiarch/Makefile: Update (sysdep_routines): Add s_sinf-sse2, s_conf-sse2 * sysdeps/i386/i686/fpu/multiarch/s_sinf-sse2.S: New file * sysdeps/i386/i686/fpu/multiarch/s_cosf-sse2.S: New file * sysdeps/i386/i686/fpu/multiarch/s_sinf.c: New file * sysdeps/i386/i686/fpu/multiarch/s_cosf.c: New file * sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/s_sinf.c: Update (SINF): Add macro for using routine as __sinf_ia32 * sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/s_cosf.c: Update (COSF): Add macro for using routine as __cosf_ia32 * sysdeps/i386/i686/fpu/multiarch/e_expf-sse2.S: Fix Copyright * sysdeps/i386/i686/fpu/multiarch/e_expf.c: Fix Copyright #3 2012-08-15 Liubov Dmitrieva <liubov.dmitrieva@gmail.com> * sysdeps/x86_64/fpu/s_sinf.S: New file. * sysdeps/x86_64/fpu/s_cosf.S: New file. * sysdeps/x86_64/fpu/libm-test-ulps: Update. -- Liubov Dmitrieva Intel Corporation 2012/8/16 Dmitrieva Liubov <liubov.dmitrieva@gmail.com>: > False alarm. Our functions work correctly. > > But anyway I have a separate patch for adding that test cases to "make > check" (attached). > It does not reveal new fails in current GLIBC, but several 1-ulp new > errors on IA. > And it does not reveal new fails in our new sinf/cosf functions (and > no 1-ulp new errors) > > > 2012-08-16 Liubov Dmitrieva <liubov.dmitrieva@gmail.com> > > * math/libm-test.inc: Update > Add new test cases in large arguments path. > > > So, no need to fix here, both patches are ok. > > The latest version were attached to: > http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-08/msg00267.html > http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-08/msg00265.html > > -- > Liubov Dmitrieva > > 2012/8/15 Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>: >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Dmitrieva Liubov wrote: >> >>> > This code is wrong. You cannot perform argument reduction for large >>> > arguments by using a single, double, or even extended-precision >>> > approximation for pi. >>> >>> Yes, that's wrong in x86_32 version and will be fixed but 64 bit >>> version looks ok. >> >> If that didn't get detected by the testsuite, I suppose we should add >> 0x1p+120 (or some such value that detects the problem) to the tests for >> cos and sin in libm-test.inc. (The larest float value for cos in the >> testsuite is 0x1p65; sin also tests 0x1.7f4134p+103.) >> >> -- >> Joseph S. Myers >> joseph@codesourcery.com
Attachment:
new_test_cases.patch
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
sinf_cosf_x86_32.patch
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
sinf_cosf_x86_64.patch
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |