[PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Matheus Castanho]

Before this patch, the following tests were failing:

ppc and ppc64:
    FAIL: math/test-ldouble-j0

ppc64le:
    FAIL: math/test-ibm128-j0
---
 sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
index cd2a5fed45..0b82c3f107 100644
--- a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
+++ b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
@@ -1317,13 +1317,13 @@ Function: "j0_downward":
 double: 2
 float: 4
 float128: 4
-ldouble: 11
+ldouble: 12
 
 Function: "j0_towardzero":
 double: 5
 float: 6
 float128: 2
-ldouble: 8
+ldouble: 16
 
 Function: "j0_upward":
 double: 4
-- 
2.25.4

Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 8/20/20 2:37 PM, Matheus Castanho via Libc-alpha wrote:
> Before this patch, the following tests were failing:
> 
> ppc and ppc64:
>     FAIL: math/test-ldouble-j0
> 
> ppc64le:
>     FAIL: math/test-ibm128-j0
> ---
>  sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
> index cd2a5fed45..0b82c3f107 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
> +++ b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
> @@ -1317,13 +1317,13 @@ Function: "j0_downward":
>  double: 2
>  float: 4
>  float128: 4
> -ldouble: 11
> +ldouble: 12
>  
>  Function: "j0_towardzero":
>  double: 5
>  float: 6
>  float128: 2
> -ldouble: 8
> +ldouble: 16

We should not have ULPs higher than 9.

I see Adhemerval added some 11 ULPs here for cexp.

We should be able to achieve <= 9 ULPs on these algorithms, otherwise there are
compiler problems that need fixing?
  
>  Function: "j0_upward":
>  double: 4
> 


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 20/08/2020 15:39, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 8/20/20 2:37 PM, Matheus Castanho via Libc-alpha wrote:
>> Before this patch, the following tests were failing:
>>
>> ppc and ppc64:
>>     FAIL: math/test-ldouble-j0
>>
>> ppc64le:
>>     FAIL: math/test-ibm128-j0
>> ---
>>  sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>> index cd2a5fed45..0b82c3f107 100644
>> --- a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>> +++ b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>> @@ -1317,13 +1317,13 @@ Function: "j0_downward":
>>  double: 2
>>  float: 4
>>  float128: 4
>> -ldouble: 11
>> +ldouble: 12
>>  
>>  Function: "j0_towardzero":
>>  double: 5
>>  float: 6
>>  float128: 2
>> -ldouble: 8
>> +ldouble: 16
> 
> We should not have ULPs higher than 9.
> 
> I see Adhemerval added some 11 ULPs here for cexp.
> 
> We should be able to achieve <= 9 ULPs on these algorithms, otherwise there are
> compiler problems that need fixing?

We are more forgiving for IBM long double due its inherent precision issues:

math/libm-test-support.c

 228   if (testing_ibm128)
 229     /* The documented accuracy of IBM long double division is 3ulp
 230        (see libgcc/config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble-format), so do not
 231        require better accuracy for libm functions that are exactly
 232        defined for other formats.  */
 233     max_valid_error = exact ? 3 : 16;
 234   else
 235     max_valid_error = exact ? 0 : 9;

And jN implementation also has low precision for some inputs.  With both constraints
I think 16ulps should be ok.

Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Paul Zimmermann]

       Dear Carlos,

> We should be able to achieve <= 9 ULPs on these algorithms, otherwise there are
> compiler problems that need fixing?

we are far from <= 9 ULPS for j0,j1,y0,y1, even in binary32.
See https://members.loria.fr/PZimmermann/papers/accuracy.pdf.

Paul

Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho]

Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> writes:

> On 20/08/2020 15:39, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 8/20/20 2:37 PM, Matheus Castanho via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>> Before this patch, the following tests were failing:
>>>
>>> ppc and ppc64:
>>>     FAIL: math/test-ldouble-j0
>>>
>>> ppc64le:
>>>     FAIL: math/test-ibm128-j0
>>> ---
>>>  sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>>> index cd2a5fed45..0b82c3f107 100644
>>> --- a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>>> +++ b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>>> @@ -1317,13 +1317,13 @@ Function: "j0_downward":
>>>  double: 2
>>>  float: 4
>>>  float128: 4
>>> -ldouble: 11
>>> +ldouble: 12
>>>  
>>>  Function: "j0_towardzero":
>>>  double: 5
>>>  float: 6
>>>  float128: 2
>>> -ldouble: 8
>>> +ldouble: 16
>> 
>> We should not have ULPs higher than 9.
>> 
>> I see Adhemerval added some 11 ULPs here for cexp.
>> 
>> We should be able to achieve <= 9 ULPs on these algorithms, otherwise there are
>> compiler problems that need fixing?
>
> We are more forgiving for IBM long double due its inherent precision issues:
>
> math/libm-test-support.c
>
>  228   if (testing_ibm128)
>  229     /* The documented accuracy of IBM long double division is 3ulp
>  230        (see libgcc/config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble-format), so do not
>  231        require better accuracy for libm functions that are exactly
>  232        defined for other formats.  */
>  233     max_valid_error = exact ? 3 : 16;
>  234   else
>  235     max_valid_error = exact ? 0 : 9;
>
> And jN implementation also has low precision for some inputs.  With both constraints
> I think 16ulps should be ok.

There is also a loss of precision with different rounding modes in libgcc.

There are currently 30 entries for ibm128 with ULP between 10 and 16 (without
counting this patch).  Maybe some of these should actually be marked as
xfail-rounding:ibm128-libgcc instead.

The only way to validate this is by compiling glibc with a libgcc that has a
patch from Joseph.  I have an up-to-date version of that patch in
https://github.com/tuliom/gcc/commit/ca42479cae3c2b56651c3e97bb5eeaf24ca4bb61

-- 
Tulio Magno

Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 8/20/20 3:44 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
> Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> writes:
> 
>> On 20/08/2020 15:39, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> On 8/20/20 2:37 PM, Matheus Castanho via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>>> Before this patch, the following tests were failing:
>>>>
>>>> ppc and ppc64:
>>>>     FAIL: math/test-ldouble-j0
>>>>
>>>> ppc64le:
>>>>     FAIL: math/test-ibm128-j0
>>>> ---
>>>>  sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps | 4 ++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>>>> index cd2a5fed45..0b82c3f107 100644
>>>> --- a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>>>> +++ b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>>>> @@ -1317,13 +1317,13 @@ Function: "j0_downward":
>>>>  double: 2
>>>>  float: 4
>>>>  float128: 4
>>>> -ldouble: 11
>>>> +ldouble: 12
>>>>  
>>>>  Function: "j0_towardzero":
>>>>  double: 5
>>>>  float: 6
>>>>  float128: 2
>>>> -ldouble: 8
>>>> +ldouble: 16
>>>
>>> We should not have ULPs higher than 9.
>>>
>>> I see Adhemerval added some 11 ULPs here for cexp.
>>>
>>> We should be able to achieve <= 9 ULPs on these algorithms, otherwise there are
>>> compiler problems that need fixing?
>>
>> We are more forgiving for IBM long double due its inherent precision issues:
>>
>> math/libm-test-support.c
>>
>>  228   if (testing_ibm128)
>>  229     /* The documented accuracy of IBM long double division is 3ulp
>>  230        (see libgcc/config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble-format), so do not
>>  231        require better accuracy for libm functions that are exactly
>>  232        defined for other formats.  */
>>  233     max_valid_error = exact ? 3 : 16;
>>  234   else
>>  235     max_valid_error = exact ? 0 : 9;

Thanks. I didn't know that.

>>
>> And jN implementation also has low precision for some inputs.  With both constraints
>> I think 16ulps should be ok.
> 
> There is also a loss of precision with different rounding modes in libgcc.
> 
> There are currently 30 entries for ibm128 with ULP between 10 and 16 (without
> counting this patch).  Maybe some of these should actually be marked as
> xfail-rounding:ibm128-libgcc instead.

If the loss of precision is due to the implementation then it seems like using
an XFAIL is not an accurate representation of the state.

> The only way to validate this is by compiling glibc with a libgcc that has a
> patch from Joseph.  I have an up-to-date version of that patch in
> https://github.com/tuliom/gcc/commit/ca42479cae3c2b56651c3e97bb5eeaf24ca4bb61
 
Interesting patch, it looks similar to what we do in glibc for some of the
libm functions.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Matheus Castanho]

On 8/20/20 6:25 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 8/20/20 3:44 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
>> Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 20/08/2020 15:39, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>> On 8/20/20 2:37 PM, Matheus Castanho via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>>>> Before this patch, the following tests were failing:
>>>>>
>>>>> ppc and ppc64:
>>>>>     FAIL: math/test-ldouble-j0
>>>>>
>>>>> ppc64le:
>>>>>     FAIL: math/test-ibm128-j0
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps | 4 ++--
>>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>>>>> index cd2a5fed45..0b82c3f107 100644
>>>>> --- a/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>>>>> +++ b/sysdeps/powerpc/fpu/libm-test-ulps
>>>>> @@ -1317,13 +1317,13 @@ Function: "j0_downward":
>>>>>  double: 2
>>>>>  float: 4
>>>>>  float128: 4
>>>>> -ldouble: 11
>>>>> +ldouble: 12
>>>>>  
>>>>>  Function: "j0_towardzero":
>>>>>  double: 5
>>>>>  float: 6
>>>>>  float128: 2
>>>>> -ldouble: 8
>>>>> +ldouble: 16
>>>>
>>>> We should not have ULPs higher than 9.
>>>>
>>>> I see Adhemerval added some 11 ULPs here for cexp.
>>>>
>>>> We should be able to achieve <= 9 ULPs on these algorithms, otherwise there are
>>>> compiler problems that need fixing?
>>>
>>> We are more forgiving for IBM long double due its inherent precision issues:
>>>
>>> math/libm-test-support.c
>>>
>>>  228   if (testing_ibm128)
>>>  229     /* The documented accuracy of IBM long double division is 3ulp
>>>  230        (see libgcc/config/rs6000/ibm-ldouble-format), so do not
>>>  231        require better accuracy for libm functions that are exactly
>>>  232        defined for other formats.  */
>>>  233     max_valid_error = exact ? 3 : 16;
>>>  234   else
>>>  235     max_valid_error = exact ? 0 : 9;
> 
> Thanks. I didn't know that.
> 
>>>
>>> And jN implementation also has low precision for some inputs.  With both constraints
>>> I think 16ulps should be ok.
>>
>> There is also a loss of precision with different rounding modes in libgcc.
>>
>> There are currently 30 entries for ibm128 with ULP between 10 and 16 (without
>> counting this patch).  Maybe some of these should actually be marked as
>> xfail-rounding:ibm128-libgcc instead.
> 
> If the loss of precision is due to the implementation then it seems like using
> an XFAIL is not an accurate representation of the state.
> 
>> The only way to validate this is by compiling glibc with a libgcc that has a
>> patch from Joseph.  I have an up-to-date version of that patch in
>> https://github.com/tuliom/gcc/commit/ca42479cae3c2b56651c3e97bb5eeaf24ca4bb61
>  
> Interesting patch, it looks similar to what we do in glibc for some of the
> libm functions.
> 

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.

2. Do (1) only for entries that have ULPs higher than a threshold (say,
9 or 16)?

3. Apply the patch as-is?

4. Other?

--
Matheus Castanho

Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho]

Matheus Castanho via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> 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

Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Joseph Myers]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho via Libc-alpha wrote:

> > 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.

If the functions for different floating-point formats use similar 
algorithms, the error may be a multiple of the error for the basic 
arithmetic operations.  Since the basic arithmetic operations for 
ldbl-128ibm are less accurate than for IEEE formats, it seems reasonable 
to allow larger errors for libm functions for that format as well.

Ideally the errors would be smaller than they are for some functions with 
larger errors, but that might require algorithmic improvements.  The 
existing bounds of 9 or 16 ulps are empirical, based on what's seen with 
functions where the issue is simply the accumulation of lots of separate 
errors rather than algorithms with inherent numerical problems.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps

[Patsy Griffin]

Hi,

We're seeing these powerpc test failures in our Fedora testing.

Is it possible to submit the original ulps patch and resolve the other
concerns going forward?

Thank you,
Patsy

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:44 PM Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho via
Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> wrote:

> Matheus Castanho via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> 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
>
>