From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A71388A416 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 06:53:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org A3A71388A416 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,384,1602540000"; d="scan'208";a="371466575" Received: from tomate.loria.fr (HELO tomate) ([152.81.10.51]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jan 2021 07:53:44 +0100 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:53:44 +0100 Message-Id: From: Paul Zimmermann To: Joseph Myers Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: (message from Joseph Myers on Thu, 28 Jan 2021 18:56:26 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix the inaccuracy of j0f (BZ 14469) and y0f (BZ 14471) (v3) References: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, 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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 06:53:47 -0000 thank you Joseph for your review, I will submit a new version. Paul > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 18:56:26 +0000 > From: Joseph Myers > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2021, Paul Zimmermann wrote: > > > -# the next value generates larger error bounds on x86_64 (binary32) > > -j0 0x2.602774p+0 xfail-rounding:ibm128-libgcc > > I don't think libm test inputs should generally be removed, they're still > useful even if other inputs give larger errors. > > > -# the next value generates larger error bounds on x86_64 (binary32) > > -y0 0xd.3432bp-4 > > Likewise. > > > +# the next two values yield the largest error (9 ulps) for binary32 (x86_64) > > +y0 0x1.33eaacp+5 xfail:binary64 xfail:intel96 > > The XFAILs should have a comment referencing the corresponding open bug. > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > joseph@codesourcery.com >