From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6533945060 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:53:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 0F6533945060 Received: from mail-io1-f69.google.com (mail-io1-f69.google.com [209.85.166.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-397-dPCebfcHPDKHFOv8-Wu1vQ-1; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 10:53:16 -0400 X-MC-Unique: dPCebfcHPDKHFOv8-Wu1vQ-1 Received: by mail-io1-f69.google.com with SMTP id i1so3459273iom.1 for ; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 07:53:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mb40ZaWiTJVMzst3lMwJaRNGxw56Gb/lrVKs+Vrqj8w=; b=KhnbUbo2zITB1sRL44i18VP+SRCKMDzWjk8qPTRUXBYeozRhj+dUee1rhLX/N0UYIR xn/TAunddIVYL/cxA4ptl6I1cLAQi238Lup70k5ZITF3B0tXgAKnv8XDNSik3Yd3ITWN eCxPM5OuW76UTVzizqG98FrUlrqqH3zHI9qZWCvueAA5VTTc3qS1l70Dw+2zy97eSGXT x7X45yRyjkNACGSwoB89H3Axok/BcOByoSZ1Irn+63DTynTYK60K19foiF8lF6TnXZgI wgkMV3QH4IXTbuf76U66KdUsxUgkzPehpAKS5wE5ST41ct2jTv63kW+iAGNV0snHXEac UnXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53332fCe68lWf4y/BmroRP7TTdIJ277MrLdGMz4a9mx9M9C/dtNQ PVCW5rX/TFA6pF8mEEyyQ3VqPfLFTFVEOucYLj6FwvAJFmZ+LWzXDwhnv2oJ+VefIfvNh3CcSP/ Z0quI75P5/JaIM8p3y9ZuXCMGIW/AfY3tk7/r X-Received: by 2002:a92:8555:: with SMTP id f82mr3714201ilh.190.1599058395430; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 07:53:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyvtmboXz2x9Rw2yXmOAlbn1oDl3XiDuPItib0VzmHMpmszQhgwbGbDEYqeUDv69looMi8zp+blM0kXNaPHP2I= X-Received: by 2002:a92:8555:: with SMTP id f82mr3714184ilh.190.1599058395216; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 07:53:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <87eenmaey3.fsf@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <87eenmaey3.fsf@linux.ibm.com> From: Patsy Griffin Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:52:39 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update powerpc libm-test-ulps To: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho Cc: Matheus Castanho , GNU C Library X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 14:53:20 -0000 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 wrote: > 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 > >