* [Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception
[not found] <bug-16447-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2014-02-04 16:04 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2014-02-06 15:57 ` stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2014-02-04 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16447
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
I would say that the calculation of "unsafe" (which determines whether
there is a final scaling step) should be adjusted to count a wider range
of cases as unsafe - any case where the problem multiplication might
underflow.
Note that since this has been tracked to a problem with expl, any fix
should add a corresponding expl input showing the problem as an exp test
in auto-libm-test-in, rather than only testing the problem indirectly
through erfc.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception
[not found] <bug-16447-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
2014-02-04 16:04 ` [Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2014-02-06 15:57 ` stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
2014-02-06 16:38 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com @ 2014-02-06 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16447
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Liebler <stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com> ---
I´ve posted a patch for the exp testcase (expl(-11342.8125)).
I´ve also tested a wider unsafe-check:
unsafe = abs(n_i) >= -16363;
//unsafe = abs(n_i) >= -LDBL_MIN_EXP - 1;
Then the testcase passes on S/390.
LDBL_MIN_EXP expands to -16381 on S/390.
A small test on S/390 shows that
expl(-11341.99999L) works as expected, but with
expl(-11341.999999L) the result is same as expl(-11342.8125).
In both cases n_i == -16363.
How to handle the unsafe-check?
Which platform uses this implementation of expl?
Can we simply change the unsafe-check in sysdeps/iee754 or is a new
platform-specific implementation required?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
>From glibc-bugs-return-21121-listarch-glibc-bugs=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org Thu Feb 06 16:07:36 2014
Return-Path: <glibc-bugs-return-21121-listarch-glibc-bugs=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 31705 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2014 16:07:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:glibc-bugs-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:glibc-bugs@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org
Delivered-To: mailing list glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 31617 invoked by uid 48); 6 Feb 2014 16:07:30 -0000
From: "carlos at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug network/16529] netinet/in.h breaks -pedantic
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:07:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: network
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: carlos at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-16529-131-9I5hMOhd1k@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-16529-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-16529-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2
Content-length: 541
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id\x16529
Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |carlos at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> ---
This bug is my mistake. I'll remove the trailing comma which is only valid C99.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception
[not found] <bug-16447-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
2014-02-04 16:04 ` [Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception joseph at codesourcery dot com
2014-02-06 15:57 ` stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
@ 2014-02-06 16:38 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2014-02-11 12:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2014-02-06 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16447
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, stli at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> unsafe = abs(n_i) >= -16363;
Well, abs >= (negative value) doesn't seem right.
To work out what's unsafe, you need to consider how small x22 can be in
cases where ex2_u.d is small. The answer is roughly that x22, if not 0,
is at least 1ulp of the input (not exactly, because of the way values from
a table get subtracted from the input) - so, roughly, you could have
problems up to n_i around -16382 + 113. Certainly saying unsafe = abs
(n_i) >= 15000 should be safe, even allowing for the way x gets adjusted.
> How to handle the unsafe-check?
> Which platform uses this implementation of expl?
> Can we simply change the unsafe-check in sysdeps/iee754 or is a new
> platform-specific implementation required?
The same correction should apply to all platforms using ldbl-128; no
platform-specific implementation should be needed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception
[not found] <bug-16447-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-02-06 16:38 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2014-02-11 12:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-02-11 14:13 ` krebbel1 at de dot ibm.com
2014-06-13 8:58 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-02-11 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16447
--- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "GNU C Library master sources".
The branch, master has been updated
via 7e6424e343b5213ae12bae83c0d018f4fcafd5cd (commit)
from 83a3406e0f1dd92cd6c7c2a668c5cec2fe1a0cc6 (commit)
Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have
not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those
revisions in full, below.
- Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=glibc.git;h=7e6424e343b5213ae12bae83c0d018f4fcafd5cd
commit 7e6424e343b5213ae12bae83c0d018f4fcafd5cd
Author: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue Feb 11 13:47:47 2014 +0100
BZ #16447: Fix ldbl-128 expl implementation.
Extend the range of numbers handled via unsafe mode.
Add expl testcase and regenerate ULPs for s390.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of changes:
ChangeLog | 9 +++++++++
math/auto-libm-test-in | 1 +
math/auto-libm-test-out | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_expl.c | 2 +-
sysdeps/s390/fpu/libm-test-ulps | 3 +++
5 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception
[not found] <bug-16447-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-02-11 12:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-02-11 14:13 ` krebbel1 at de dot ibm.com
2014-06-13 8:58 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: krebbel1 at de dot ibm.com @ 2014-02-11 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16447
Andreas Krebbel <krebbel1 at de dot ibm.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Andreas Krebbel <krebbel1 at de dot ibm.com> ---
Fixed with the commit above.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug math/16447] erfc (0x6.a8p+4) ldbl-128 throws underflow exception
[not found] <bug-16447-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-02-11 14:13 ` krebbel1 at de dot ibm.com
@ 2014-06-13 8:58 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: fweimer at redhat dot com @ 2014-06-13 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16447
Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |security-
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread