From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17380 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2016 12:48:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 17233 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2016 12:48:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=1-3 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:48:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Carlos O'Donell CC: GNU C Library Subject: Re: [PATCH] Regenerate ULPs for i486 builds. In-Reply-To: <8f606007-c4fc-70a1-13ca-509f1b2f131c@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <8f606007-c4fc-70a1-13ca-509f1b2f131c@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00519.txt.bz2 On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Why might we be 1-3 ULP worse than the previously checked in baseline? Because, for the most part, when new tests or libm changes require ulps updates, people test for i686/fpu/multiarch and so update that file but not this one (the two can have slightly different results for some functions because of the different implementations used). The new tests requiring this update were from commit c898991d8bcfacc825097ba389ffccc5367c2b2d. > OK to checkin? OK. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com