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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 [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 D8A651F852 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 06:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF55B3857C68 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 06:39:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 484963858D37 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 06:39:20 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 484963858D37 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=inria.fr DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:subject: references; bh=5PqzvBq35vTmLk74yBNH0y8PBuBwZFWgmB8SyvPSxXU=; b=YJddpCRBxkQbQrXV+7e6QG0vgHJziprULSguwc2cLasPA0v9C1aDbExB KOj/jMEjX8TW+Rc8BDgb4N6w1hzae3M37j7jDC162DZODOgNDIszm2tgI 4O3c1AygSaJh+zB2WDZ6d00DIwyugN40EUTNUeQMfAtL5PR11nVca+KnS g=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,363,1635199200"; d="scan'208";a="20999673" Received: from tomate.loria.fr (HELO tomate) ([152.81.10.51]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2022 07:39:19 +0100 Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 07:39:19 +0100 Message-Id: From: Paul Zimmermann To: Joseph Myers In-Reply-To: (message from Joseph Myers on Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:23:58 +0000) Subject: Re: Accuracy of Mathematical Functions References: 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" Dear Joseph, > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:23:58 +0000 > From: Joseph Myers > > 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.) is http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1946.pdf the correct reference for the list of these functions? Most of them are available in MPFR, when they will be available in glibc we might indeed add them. > 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). for points 2-4, I agree this would be interesting, but we have limited manpower. If anyone wants to help us, she/he is welcome! Best regards, Paul