unofficial mirror of libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* accuracy of j0f
@ 2021-08-03 14:42 Paul Zimmermann
  2021-08-03 16:45 ` Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Zimmermann @ 2021-08-03 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: libc-alpha

       Hi,

I noticed while testing glibc-2.34 that one of the last minute changes I did
to my patch for j0f was completely wrong. The consequence is that the maximal
error for j0f is still about 900000 ulps and not 9 ulps as claimed. The good
news is that it is not worse than the previous situation from 2.33.

The fix is very easy. Should I reopen bug #14469 or simply send the fix
to the list?

Other Bessel functions (j1, y0, y1) are not affected.

Paul

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: accuracy of j0f
  2021-08-03 14:42 accuracy of j0f Paul Zimmermann
@ 2021-08-03 16:45 ` Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha
  2021-08-04  7:49   ` Paul Zimmermann
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha @ 2021-08-03 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Paul Zimmermann; +Cc: libc-alpha

* Paul Zimmermann:

> I noticed while testing glibc-2.34 that one of the last minute changes I did
> to my patch for j0f was completely wrong. The consequence is that the maximal
> error for j0f is still about 900000 ulps and not 9 ulps as claimed. The good
> news is that it is not worse than the previous situation from 2.33.
>
> The fix is very easy. Should I reopen bug #14469 or simply send the fix
> to the list?

I'd prefer a new bug for this, so that we can reference it in the commit
and backport to the 2.34 release branch.

Thanks,
Florian


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: accuracy of j0f
  2021-08-03 16:45 ` Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha
@ 2021-08-04  7:49   ` Paul Zimmermann
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Zimmermann @ 2021-08-04  7:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Florian Weimer; +Cc: libc-alpha

       Dear Florian,

done, this is bug #28185. I'll submit a patch.

Paul

> From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
> Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 18:45:09 +0200
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
> 
> * Paul Zimmermann:
> 
> > I noticed while testing glibc-2.34 that one of the last minute changes I did
> > to my patch for j0f was completely wrong. The consequence is that the maximal
> > error for j0f is still about 900000 ulps and not 9 ulps as claimed. The good
> > news is that it is not worse than the previous situation from 2.33.
> >
> > The fix is very easy. Should I reopen bug #14469 or simply send the fix
> > to the list?
> 
> I'd prefer a new bug for this, so that we can reference it in the commit
> and backport to the 2.34 release branch.
> 
> Thanks,
> Florian

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-08-04  7:50 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-08-03 14:42 accuracy of j0f Paul Zimmermann
2021-08-03 16:45 ` Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha
2021-08-04  7:49   ` Paul Zimmermann

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).