This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] i386: move ULPs to i686 and regenerate new ones for i586
- From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien at aurel32 dot net>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:18:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386: move ULPs to i686 and regenerate new ones for i586
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1449179075-2420-1-git-send-email-aurelien at aurel32 dot net> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1512032223310 dot 1888 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 2015-12-03 22:28, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > The i386 ULPs are actually the i686 ones. The i586 results are slightly
> > less precise. Therefore move the current ULPs to the i386/i686 directory
> > and generate i586 ones for the i386 directory.
>
> Are you sure they are i686 ones rather than actually i686+SSE2 (does
> --disable-multi-arch make any difference)?
You are actually correct, the current sysdeps/i386/fpu/libm-test-ulps
file corresponds to the i686+SSE2 ULPs.
Also the i586 and i686 ULPs are actually the same.
> > Note: In theory we should even put the i486 ULPs in the i386 directory
> > and put the i586 ones in the i386/i586 directory. Not sure it is worth
> > it.
>
> There are no i586-specific libm function implementations, so there should
> be no difference in ulps between glibc built for i486 and i586.
>
> If test inputs can be found that, built for i686, generate the higher ulps
> seen when building for pre-i686, that would reduce the number of variant
> ulps files needing regeneration.
Ok, I'll try that, but between i686 and i686+SSE2.
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net