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,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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 AE67C1F8C6 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 07:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7A93971C24 for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 07:50:01 +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 BCB4E389042D for ; Wed, 4 Aug 2021 07:49:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BCB4E389042D 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=5BNhuovvWjxRvvtAjI9CWWwcF6pOG5R1jg2L0NNMkks=; b=jiI0beDWG0NonuLLT8uePnM9ReY71DtLqbrGjx8Z8Iio9uaa7MeL9xUM HWuDHqGFhSqb0YFSS7J7oGCsc0ZXXEvtOISYO+yCcygaHLpdA8rI0OJIr N2SXBg0clhih3IhYocaRoYP9LQh06bQEqoHpj7wVfDca7RO/8tIB2mwU5 Y=; IronPort-HdrOrdr: =?us-ascii?q?A9a23=3At6NFl64G7Vb9Fb4XJgPXwEHXdLJyesId70hD?= =?us-ascii?q?6qm+c31om6uj5qSTdZUgpHrJYVMqMk3I9ursBEDtex/hHXAc2/hqAV7gZnichI?= =?us-ascii?q?OQRLsSkLcKoQeBJ8SOzJ8+6U46SdkYNDSYNzET5voShjPWLz9K+qjlzEnHv4nj?= =?us-ascii?q?Jl5WPH1XQpAlwQdlKxqRVnZ7TBNBAvMCZeKhz/sCiTq8WGgdKv+2DHkdX+TFur?= =?us-ascii?q?Tw5evbSC9DKR47yRWEyQil4r7iExSew1M3Xj5Vza05mFK17DDR1+GMs+yb1hSZ?= =?us-ascii?q?7WPV4phM8eGRrOd+OA=3D=3D?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,293,1620684000"; d="scan'208";a="522697738" Received: from tomate.loria.fr (HELO tomate) ([152.81.10.51]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Aug 2021 09:49:32 +0200 Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2021 09:49:32 +0200 Message-Id: From: Paul Zimmermann To: Florian Weimer In-Reply-To: <8735rqh3ze.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (message from Florian Weimer on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 18:45:09 +0200) Subject: Re: accuracy of j0f References: <8735rqh3ze.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> 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 Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" Dear Florian, done, this is bug #28185. I'll submit a patch. Paul > From: Florian Weimer > 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