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: AS17314 8.43.84.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (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 40A791F852 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:24:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8193857C4D for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:24:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from esa2.mentor.iphmx.com (esa2.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.141.98]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25053385841B for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:24:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 25053385841B Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codesourcery.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentor.com IronPort-SDR: WYZnaVtoJyw0IIp5JgyQIJwhJ+7Un9hEm8+RQuof/XPVsuOLl0yu+P2wzY+BHtMN98VAgsuwaR IYmSSg+O0DHFuElP+Iu/aQ0y7UzHwnAvyciR2A018DT73mETo5kcz3gbQMO/MWI0UTZDWR98MZ ssIyLiGBHZtPpPBPGTnLls/0DJ011k6LbcOsg6kc8bw5TGYWMYcOPIXaxhrLKkmKVkV5S6ikof N7Y8BaZUy9WvNFGRfy4PGikE1yLpNLEK9q0lt04S1I6h6d/EbVyk5yGNa0T6sQbWOJIAOw+hQA Txu3kO8WeranstM1R5mprhKT X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,361,1635235200"; d="scan'208";a="71903062" Received: from orw-gwy-02-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.167]) by esa2.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2022 10:24:04 -0800 IronPort-SDR: QgI11Iquw9y8RvwCyl7smGSG9AzTRO6xNg+3a/ZoKLpj04HjTrCSeRZGVVqn4h+3EwvI2Y3OM0 tKUYtsewiv1bM7AbhDTA19RWzmlsbroW0wkl3LqkMa6qGqGQhvksiRCi132rGN5oz1DqEc6tdH QRXv2tyWTXKO+lpazftB+/bcDI8CsZ0Tfu4plkhPGmtqIEZyfOX8SBScEEbcyLWOwv+5LFzdll VS8QE1w9SEFhCD0Rj/tWwLtSv3GseuB67Lochk/n8KcP1nDxVTUjGotSkLCYYV+7cXnz8c874A TRo= Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:23:58 +0000 From: Joseph Myers X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: Paul Zimmermann Subject: Re: Accuracy of Mathematical Functions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90] X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-15.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.15) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) 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: , Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, vincenzo.innocente@cern.ch Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Paul Zimmermann wrote: > Hi, > > with the release of GNU libc 2.35, we have published a new version of our > comparison of the accuracy of mathematical libraries: > > https://members.loria.fr/PZimmermann/papers/accuracy.pdf > > For the GNU libc, with respect to 2.34, we observed an improvement in j0f, > tgamma, hypot, hypotl and hypotf128. > > With respect to the previous update, we compare two new libraries: LLVM libc > and ROCm. Thanks for the update. A few remarks on things it might be interesting to add to the analysis: 1. I don't know if any of those libraries include any of the new functions C23 adds from TS 18661-4 (beyond exp10), but if they do, it might be worth adding them to the comparison. (My remarks from apply regarding adding them to glibc - when I get time I hope to add them, as with other new C23 features, if no-one else has done them by then.) 2. I don't know if any of those libraries have IEEE binary16 functions (C _Float16), but again, if any do, they might be worth testing (in that case, exhaustive testing should be possible for functions of two arguments, not just functions of a single argument). 3. As previously remarked, FreeBSD libm is another implementation that might be worth testing (though that would require running the tests on a FreeBSD system). 4. As previously remarked, it would be interesting to see similar data for complex functions (real and imaginary parts of the result of a function with one complex argument being essentially the same as the case of a function with a real result and two real arguments). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com