From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D7591F8C6 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:45:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A843393B038 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:45:35 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6A843393B038 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1628009135; bh=eqMyfEhXJToixStN74Pndv38G0Mc4m9ZoNLgy9iR2O8=; h=To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=DycnglPyzn1lDLd/3lEKEXJcpgSbvu2UWKWy4yXOz9fdp27hwwld6gHe/0Ls0pHrc Fh5UFIokqoGu0vL5rxpzClKAUsfzp1IE056NSsvLRHrUZpcKaevDRJV4FyC1pxS3Bq gpiErcJRB6xWrFdodD/zj5yJDHccsANRWw4GvFkk= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F43385500C for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:45:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org D8F43385500C Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-483-RJyh_Y6nMe6JeVX8CDz7pQ-1; Tue, 03 Aug 2021 12:45:13 -0400 X-MC-Unique: RJyh_Y6nMe6JeVX8CDz7pQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BC53107ACF5; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:45:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.123]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C4DC5C3DF; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 16:45:11 +0000 (UTC) To: Paul Zimmermann Subject: Re: accuracy of j0f References: Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 18:45:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Paul Zimmermann's message of "Tue, 03 Aug 2021 16:42:16 +0200") Message-ID: <8735rqh3ze.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Florian Weimer Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "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