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 D38143858403 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:28:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D38143858403 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org D38143858403 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706873337; cv=none; b=mkK86swlfqa6P2bPFiaPHVjd5zq+ZEEHP8OFQvKNjDzDEpUjAurZXdSbYi6P8QQ16N6R6pACyMi1BHgqvaNYFWMEyO9dhYfNehkxcuMLybc5GufEy6+/Uifj7PrQ6FRqFI9NPlzqu/w19nGo2ubXtjIEmkizf8F/iN7/OyIHqH4= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706873337; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FGYl6Z9E/gfNjG6ACSd6PRhNzm/qE6Qjl9617UrnFo4=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=GrcikVzvH0BAvqP5vll+Fkh0XkEx1C7DqPuOF3N1+6KFDene+buLq9MWQb0iCLrdbPi1F/OmSon51Knu4XNloLrmIXunHoVRUmSHgjyUWdHyZwhzwOLg3CrIIarvU8PkhAYt3/SPR2lxO8ycHTuiXv9EyseKrQf2oikbs5L4RkI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1706873335; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VwB+6IaN8js+IhoT2/6i+pF8Bd0b9I+d18Pq5WcfVbg=; b=b0HszjTq+bgV/KHWWM/SCjaxNy+HdZfe5APO/qKFZkwOKqXrGsFSXf4y+pAmahppeq9rrw 7zJEmwXjqqE3HZU2uab6rCCPAD7ykqMLrXmHZv02fuAyz0NP2okLKXgVWi3h85NdqUxWLi 0rBumKg2Df+QjQcozcexX69w9BwhfC0= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-458-pOiYuy6iPRSunF9LVtYojw-1; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 06:28:52 -0500 X-MC-Unique: pOiYuy6iPRSunF9LVtYojw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26FC93C0BE4E; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:28:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.27]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 478731BDB0; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:28:51 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Xi Ruoyao Cc: "Andreas K. Huettel" , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: state of the ports References: <4155299.iIbC2pHGDl@noumea> <957b010883ee318d61b64ed22afcb2d743fe1fc6.camel@xry111.site> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 12:28:45 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Xi Ruoyao's message of "Fri, 02 Feb 2024 15:53:51 +0800") Message-ID: <87il37t89e.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * Xi Ruoyao: > On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 15:51 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote: >> On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 03:35 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> > mips (n64) >> > =C2=A0- mostly math failures >>=20 >> They are some sort of 2 ulp vs expected 1 ulp things.=C2=A0 I'm not yet = sure >> if they are hardware issues or Glibc bugs. > > Something like: > > testing double (without inline functions) > Failure: Test: j0 (0x4.130e7p+4) > Result: > is: -1.0474906594151864e-04 -0x1.b759740016860p-14 > should be: -1.0474906594151868e-04 -0x1.b759740016863p-14 > difference: 4.0657581468206416e-20 0x1.8000000000000p-65 > ulp : 3.0000 > max.ulp : 2.0000 > Maximal error of `j0' > is : 3 ulp > accepted: 2 ulp > Failure: Test: j0_downward (0xa.5b833p+4) > Result: > is: 1.4785400727226293e-05 0x1.f01da00ab51d1p-17 > should be: 1.4785400727226283e-05 0x1.f01da00ab51cbp-17 > difference: 1.0164395367051604e-20 0x1.8000000000000p-67 > ulp : 6.0000 > max.ulp : 5.0000 > Maximal error of `j0_downward' > is : 6 ulp > accepted: 5 ulp > Failure: Test: j0_towardzero (0xa.5b833p+4) > Result: > is: 1.4785400727226271e-05 0x1.f01da00ab51c4p-17 > should be: 1.4785400727226283e-05 0x1.f01da00ab51cbp-17 > difference: 1.1858461261560204e-20 0x1.c000000000000p-67 > ulp : 7.0000 > max.ulp : 6.0000 > Maximal error of `j0_towardzero' > is : 7 ulp > accepted: 6 ulp > > Test suite completed: > 212 test cases plus 208 tests for exception flags and > 208 tests for errno executed. > 6 errors occurred. > > I'm really not an expert in numerical analysis. Any pointer to debug > such a thing further? I think these are well within the bounds that other ports accept. If there are genuine bugs, the results are off by thousands or millions of ulps. Thanks, Florian