public inbox for glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "dangelog at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug math/29193] sincos produces a different output than sin/cos
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 11:37:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-29193-131-QjGovEhrH0@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-29193-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29193

--- Comment #5 from Giuseppe D'Angelo <dangelog at gmail dot com> ---
Hello,

In a nutshell, there are a few things crossing each other:

1) `__sin_fma` returns slightly different results than `__sin_avx` or
`__sin_sse2`. I don't think that this is a problem at all, but I might be
wrong, I just lack the necessary knowledge about what glibc specifically
promises here.

2) `sincos` seems to be consistent with `__sin_sse2`, and therefore
inconsistent with `__sin_fma`. Is this inconsistency OK? Should it be
documented?

3) In general, this opens the question: within the very same "environment"
(same process, CPU, libm, fpenv, etc.), is there any guarantee that `sin(x)`
always  yields the very same result for identical values of `x`? Is `sin(x)`
meant to be perfectly reproducible? If yes, should GCC stop turning pairs of
`sin(x)` and `cos(x)` calls into one call to `sincos`?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-05-31 11:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-27 16:53 [Bug math/29193] New: " dangelog at gmail dot com
2022-05-27 19:33 ` [Bug math/29193] " schwab@linux-m68k.org
2022-05-27 20:05 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2022-05-27 22:50 ` dangelog at gmail dot com
2022-05-28  9:03 ` dangelog at gmail dot com
2022-05-31 11:37 ` dangelog at gmail dot com [this message]
2022-05-31 11:47 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
2022-06-01  8:32 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2022-06-02  9:29 ` dangelog at gmail dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-29193-131-QjGovEhrH0@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
    --cc=glibc-bugs@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).