From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 265283858D1E for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:16:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 265283858D1E Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-562-d4gAlHEkNSG6CAd-fl_-Xg-1; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:16:31 -0500 X-MC-Unique: d4gAlHEkNSG6CAd-fl_-Xg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 963013488C; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:16:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.193.205]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C164B753C9; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:16:29 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Tom Coldrick via Libc-alpha Cc: Tom Coldrick Subject: Re: Inconsistent libm-err ULP Table Generation for RISC-V References: <20220211150034.okg7edbpmo6yqkgz@menegroth> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:16:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20220211150034.okg7edbpmo6yqkgz@menegroth> (Tom Coldrick via Libc-alpha's message of "Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:00:34 +0000") Message-ID: <87czjttm3o.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:16:34 -0000 * Tom Coldrick via Libc-alpha: > While performing some reproducibility testing of glibc builds, we noticed that > the ULP values for RISC-V in the libm section of libc.info-8 can change between > builds. The root cause of this is that both > sysdeps/riscv/rv32/rvd/libm-test-ulps-name and > sysdeps/riscv/rv64/rvd/libm-test-ulps-name contain "RISC-V", which means they > collide in the generation of the table. > > The net result is that the values in the ULP value table could be either the > 32-bit variant or the 64-bit variant, with no indication as to which is used. > The determining factor of which is used is an unsorted call to Python's > os.walk(), which gives results in an order dependent upon the filesystem > implementation on which it was called (that is, whatever order readdir() gives.) > This can cause reproducibility issues, as well as meaning that the values in the > manual are unclear on which variant they are for. > > I noticed that MIPS has 32- and 64-bit variants in separate columns, should this > be done for RISC-V too? I guess you could also have a shared sysdeps/riscv/libm-test-ulps-name file. Is it valuable to track accuracy separately for different RISC-V variants? Thanks, Florian