Re: document the fact that "Known Maximum Errors" might not be maximal

[Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr>]

       Vincent,

> If I understand correctly, Carlos means (unintended) bugs, in which
> case, values may even be completely wrong (as already seen). I think
> that saying "documented elsewhere" is misleading. And note that bugs
> are not specific to the math functions. Any buggy library function
> will not behave as described in the manual. You should rather say
> that the given bounds obviously do not take bugs into account, if
> you think that this is worth recalling.

of course *unknown* bugs might exist, but we are speaking of *known* defects here.

The issue is that the manual says "*Known* Maximum Errors in Math Functions".

What do you suggest to avoid users deducing from the manual that the ulp error on say y0
is bounded by 3 ulps on x86_64, whereas it can be as large as 5.93e15 ulps?

Checking y0 with glibc-2.39/build and rndn
GNU libc version: 2.39
GNU libc release: stable
y0 0 -1 0x1.c982eb8d417eap-1 [5920543797734652] [5.93e+15] 5.92055e+15 5920543797734652
libm gives -0x1.8p-55
mpfr gives -0x1.af74bfa0f1304p-56

Paul