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 3695B384B06A for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:51:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 3695B384B06A 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 3695B384B06A Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=192.134.164.104 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714398675; cv=none; b=UdKQjTDk0/UByKFXS2oxsUlKI7nzMwVt5hySVcFzoqwnFchahF4MtyGrr78IdDFnAyxY1x32PnM/KLlgp86h/TSc5IhYGJYqWQC+4OFPQalCxEK3vLI3eG5kmBBlSnRcxZlEv0oupMv63TOXM7gev6+g0C0WhiLoxxE9tXhIPOU= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714398675; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bpTC1aTZWmi4baJV48oB2d/cRzr2mmDM2Or0WdSfMhA=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:Message-Id:From:To:Subject; b=iH4RBZIxs1g+L4d3JXKu1syKYa/sd9RRVrtekgdcab9fMAsyWklFsrdx1sw00xtE4QHPIoRD2BFoBGP0lmJT+NqnC5quZo+LJy3i4cHm0Vft4neeQiVvwkCNOKmJoq1HsqQm1hmmJzh12ZGT4R1iGfGCkUL6JEGRLsXm7OMYFIQ= 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=t8sVgnCrBZ/c8X1FNO5sTCdelYbIxJIXM4lvFTh2dXw=; b=tUNnIyRBqDrbD88t4Vn2bn2jmQCEPZtYzsP6HTutKTqy7Tt7r/hU+31/ DDK+b6IlUacv1CjMjuwh7y0aQxOMiGOJrfBMpj7GOYSrNDctPdqbqKcSE LgjJldW+5HWUEaRED774mE6zP7fdVZxK/AqQb6+QLXaFWQB0nfOtjObuE 4=; Authentication-Results: mail3-relais-sop.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 (mail3-relais-sop.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=mail3-relais-sop.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 (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@coriandre) identity=helo; client-ip=152.81.9.227; receiver=mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@coriandre"; x-conformance=spf_only X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,239,1708383600"; d="scan'208";a="85986485" Received: from coriandre.loria.fr (HELO coriandre) ([152.81.9.227]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Apr 2024 15:51:12 +0200 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 15:51:11 +0200 Message-Id: From: Paul Zimmermann To: Joseph Myers Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <7468e028-70b-e9d1-1985-70fef8ab950@redhat.com> (message from Joseph Myers on Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:34:08 +0000 (UTC)) Subject: Re: Ping Re: Implement C23 log2p1 References: <41a4a6c9-4942-a9be-9459-1aaeb44ffee8@redhat.com> <7468e028-70b-e9d1-1985-70fef8ab950@redhat.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Dear Joseph, I have already given my opinion on this patch (after sending several hours to exercise it): https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2024-April/156007.html I now let other people comment. Paul Zimmermann > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 13:34:08 +0000 (UTC) > From: Joseph Myers > > I'd like to ping this patch > , and, > in particular: > > (a) the actual content of the patch, which no-one has commented on > (instead preferring to suggest other things to add to it); > > (b) the questions of what goes in such patches, where I argue that we > should not expect libm-test-ulps updates for more than one architecture, > or additional test inputs based on searches for worst-case inputs, to be > included in such a patch: that it should be sufficient to include > libm-test-ulps updates for a single architecture, and tests that seem > appropriate based on the mathematical properties of the function being > tested, and further additions there can reasonably be made in followup > patches. (Note that even if we moved to a single libm-test-ulps shared > between architectures and listing expected ulps based on floating-point > format rather than type, it still wouldn't be possible to update all ulps > on a single system: no architecture supports both ldbl-96 and > ldbl-128ibm.) > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > josmyers@redhat.com >