From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76E6839556AA for ; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:43:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 76E6839556AA Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07VH2gut008747; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:43:52 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3394th1n63-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:43:52 -0400 Received: from m0098399.ppops.net (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 07VHbKpa103687; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:43:51 -0400 Received: from ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (7a.29.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.53.41.122]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3394th1n5q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:43:51 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 07VHhk0h021727; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:43:51 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.23]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 337en8p6hr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:43:50 +0000 Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.110]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 07VHhoE352887938 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:43:50 GMT Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310B0AE060; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:43:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C770CAE05C; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:43:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.65.208.250]) by b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:43:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho To: Matheus Castanho , "Carlos O'Donell" , Adhemerval Zanella , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps In-Reply-To: <06271a7e-e3fa-35eb-d045-04b2711c8b5c@linux.ibm.com> References: <20200820183700.115087-1-msc@linux.ibm.com> <076cd0b3-1988-144f-3c25-cc71a14218c2@redhat.com> <1efa0451-3df4-73ee-93e3-934f6ff1a30d@linaro.org> <875z9dgl0w.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <8da995b5-db39-b306-56e7-693c864a824e@redhat.com> <06271a7e-e3fa-35eb-d045-04b2711c8b5c@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.29.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/26.3 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:43:48 -0300 Message-ID: <87eenmaey3.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-31_08:2020-08-31, 2020-08-31 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008310102 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) 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: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 17:43:54 -0000 Matheus Castanho via Libc-alpha writes: > What do you think we should do in this case? Looks like with the libgcc > patch Tulio mentioned we can actually calculate the correct ULPs for > ibm128, but we would not be able to get that same precision when > building with a regular GCC, which would still cause issues. > > So should we: > 1. Use max precision ULPs calculated with the patched libgcc? > This would probably require adding xfail-rounding:ibm128-libgcc to > several entries in auto-libm-test-in to guarantee tests pass with > regular GCC. I believe this is the best solution if the amount of tests marked as xfail is small, e.g. 100 out of ~8k from math/auto-libm-test-in. However, if a high percentage of tests are xfail'ed, then I think we should consider option 2. > 2. Do (1) only for entries that have ULPs higher than a threshold (say, > 9 or 16)? Likewise, if we're able to keep maximum ULPs at 9 without marking too many tests as xfail'ed, that's better. Per the contents of sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps, this should be possible and would not need have a greater max_valid_error for inexact functions just for ibm128. -- Tulio Magno