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 E01683857C71 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 17:08:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org E01683857C71 Received: from mail-qv1-f70.google.com (mail-qv1-f70.google.com [209.85.219.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-219-GWBaeTcwNqu-miW7mxO3iA-1; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:08:31 -0400 X-MC-Unique: GWBaeTcwNqu-miW7mxO3iA-1 Received: by mail-qv1-f70.google.com with SMTP id y2so3694785qvs.14 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Od+Cgeq/7gvmEbGyjPNujFpI2Q3uvSJ60UdMORiPA9o=; b=X2vnSr2WcaSuZbQoRy+m2xwIBkWGZ+voBi9YdkXHLMOwHyB6aLDjxyqFUcAt8Qs/GG 3gQcsU3+sy4aNEhHqMCOFJxDUUIOGw7N3cUrZjXlcII2Zs3il7rrzqe9ZJr3iM/ItUsK Jj6bl9ZE90zxxj5jm1vy+Yj8zn5Y5cTfpZppB6z1VeFIFt3Ate/Rs37qvfn9uqVreMQf +CW6Wqyx7PRyWpJeV+yTdFhQbd00+h+qAloDn7WrsHjpqUQqBhqJaJZeDbwZv5KxJVfi k0FaeQGqtR1s+SIDLHq/I1SowzyFpBnGF9Rqp7eKX8DjwPI+XE9elajIwj8WTofYSKXG SNJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vx3j+aiTwsoGVCPz+PexulauD47UBufX34n6U+e1BFSNm3wdD x/pgNWuetBEvupNwwb0ZkfFNtG9B1joSjTupi88t59az3L47GZrT4ZR2fSPOCgpxsSvzWxorMiQ Myaci8z27Vbyr58jdFQeW X-Received: by 2002:a37:a78e:: with SMTP id q136mr8988701qke.42.1599757710991; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4A6FPRI1xq6RfesrCF5eZWdm+7nfHT7Iq1jC3lRB4jrR6OPyt0o9HDyLPfFMhVYoP2V+YZg== X-Received: by 2002:a37:a78e:: with SMTP id q136mr8988657qke.42.1599757710497; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.16] (198-84-214-74.cpe.teksavvy.com. [198.84.214.74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c43sm7883732qtk.24.2020.09.10.10.08.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: Update ULPs and output for j0 with ibm128 To: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho , Joseph Myers , Matheus Castanho Cc: patsy@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20200909165830.64343-1-msc@linux.ibm.com> <87een93g2f.fsf@linux.ibm.com> From: Carlos O'Donell Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:08:28 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87een93g2f.fsf@linux.ibm.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, NICE_REPLY_A, 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 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: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 17:08:39 -0000 On 9/10/20 9:40 AM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote: > Joseph Myers writes: > >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020, Matheus Castanho wrote: >> >>> Instead of updating the ldouble ULPs for j0 with an upstream GCC, >>> constantly increasing their values, this patch regenerates them with a >>> GCC compiled with the patch mentioned above. This way we have the actual >>> precise ULPs listed in libm-test-ulps. Of course, when compiling with >>> an upstream compiler some tests will fail as the calculated ULPs will be >>> higher than the expected ones. For such tests, we mark the >>> corresponding entries in math/auto-libm-test-in with >>> xfail-rounding:ibm128-libgcc. >> >> xfail-rounding:ibm128-libgcc is intended for the sort of edge cases where >> upstream GCC produces results that are wildly off. It's not intended for >> these sorts of cases where it gives slightly bigger ulps that are still >> within the accepted bounds. > > Carlos, Joseph, > > I'm afraid that Matheus is either in a deadlock or we need a clearer > explanation of what is acceptable for ibm128. > > Notice that Matheus' first patch was rejected because results were greater > than 9. It was later shown to me that >9 ULPs was acceptable for ibm128, my apologies for not being clearer that I was withdrawing my objection. > With that said, would both of you accept the first version of this patch? > https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/patch/20200820183700.115087-1-msc@linux.ibm.com/ Yes. Patsy Griffin from my team also suggested this on September 2nd, she is seeing these failures in our own testing. It would be good to have them resolved. -- Cheers, Carlos.