From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D17E385841A for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 10:02:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 1D17E385841A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=inria.fr ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 1D17E385841A Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=192.134.164.83 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1708077765; cv=none; b=IjpEUcBICZQKp8a+O5UbQN+HeRI5BzFUCjFAZF77zqJ69CIDbcZ1i0nep7ciwiEuog8TrR00tIx9rpHqhAUusxtah733CrN3ub7uZgrMUETSnRimAXWw5gTp0nKWp7MzZgs/PDG4b6SXq76v06DatK6OCV+QexKq831rFWvww9M= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1708077765; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qwqkwc9yS8gguCJ9MSwdAPlZqoyu8H7wa7zUqrsptvQ=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:Message-Id:From:To:Subject; b=YLYOe2Svlc/udiaBknOGK54OiW59uq0WwaFHKBCEMzUsyMeA4x6I4lfcrnmi1EI7uTx+vHD8peGueDfvJlGP/PSCG1JrRKtMQQQhme6AtNQQTTT3oTs7aYD5vpf43kna+37soB/NAPwLnTnOsrvKSE7C2g66lQn1YBovk43KatU= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:subject: references; bh=fjYA70dqge9BsWVYGqS4E3yIMeuvXRGzU2u7rRriqf4=; b=JUbaKwHqN0ahRwM6tkBYOVUOpEvt/V5wkFJOxY04jUdLj7MUAtutcp3u NPV3SANn+F5ioks2RbNvK9ea1ocRNKpjlsFKUgBv1AfJLlondSPxiazcN t9VVoCz+A9kZH+CA6VKRG6fAj9de0YArm/vzO12ZXPpAWcKC207xxovuu 0=; Authentication-Results: mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=SoftFail smtp.mailfrom=Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@coriandre Received-SPF: SoftFail (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr is inclined to not designate 152.81.9.227 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=152.81.9.227; receiver=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr"; x-sender="Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr"; x-conformance=spf_only; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 include:mailout.safebrands.com a:basic-mail.safebrands.com a:basic-mail01.safebrands.com a:basic-mail02.safebrands.com ip4:128.93.142.0/24 ip4:192.134.164.0/24 ip4:128.93.162.160 ip4:89.107.174.7 mx ~all" Received-SPF: None (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@coriandre) identity=helo; client-ip=152.81.9.227; receiver=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@coriandre"; x-conformance=spf_only X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,164,1705359600"; d="scan'208";a="152279054" Received: from coriandre.loria.fr (HELO coriandre) ([152.81.9.227]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Feb 2024 11:02:42 +0100 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 11:02:40 +0100 Message-Id: From: Paul Zimmermann To: Vincent Lefevre Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20240216094334.GA3653@qaa.vinc17.org> (message from Vincent Lefevre on Fri, 16 Feb 2024 10:43:34 +0100) Subject: Re: document the fact that "Known Maximum Errors" might not be maximal References: <20240216094334.GA3653@qaa.vinc17.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Vincent, > Instead of saying that they are "documented elsewhere", shouldn't the > manual be updated? this is one solution I proposed in https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-December/153279.html, and Carlos answered: > (a) There are known defects where ULPs may reach values that are not useful > for talking about the library in general. > > (b) There is value in being clear about the worst case known ULPs for an > implementation of a given algorithm. > > If a test is marked as XFAIL then it is clearly (a) and listing that worst > case ULPs in the manual may not be useful. thus the proposed patch documents the existence of the "XFAIL" entries. Paul