From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23053 invoked by alias); 15 May 2013 21:12:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 23035 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2013 21:12:50 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 21:12:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4FLCmg7007649 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 May 2013 17:12:48 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.76] (ovpn-113-76.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.76]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4FLCl8T026842; Wed, 15 May 2013 17:12:48 -0400 Message-ID: <5193FA4F.30401@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 21:12:00 -0000 From: "Carlos O'Donell" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joseph S. Myers" CC: "libc-ports@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [COMMITTED] hppa: Update libm-test-ulps. References: <5193B7DD.4090600@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2013 04:59 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > >> It's not *new* here, but ulps for ceil, floor, rint, round, trunc indicate >> you've got bugs in those functions for long double; they shouldn't have >> any ulps at all. And the ulps for llrint, llround also shouldn't be >> there, and include negative values, which should never happen even when >> the functions are buggy. > > In fact, why are these tests being run for long double at all - why are > there any long double ulps (presuming you truncated the file and > regenerated from scratch, as you should at least once per release cycle)? I've never regenerated from scratch. We have not recommended that in Regeneration or the release process. I always regenerate incrementally from the existing file. Though I see your point that we should probably make this mandatory. > You have long-double-fcts = no in your makefile. Contradicting that, you > have #undef __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH in ports/sysdeps/hppa/fpu/bits/mathdef.h > - if you really have long double same as double, that should be defined to > 1, not undefined. I'm not sure the combination of long-double-fcts = no > with #undef __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH is expected to do anything sensible. Then that's a bug. We want to have long double the same as double. > (However, I'd consider it inadvisable to fix the __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH > definition before you've set up ABI test baselines for hppa and verified > them against old binaries of old releases - that sort of change has > significant risk of causing unintended changes to symbols in past ABI > versions.) Agreed. Cheers, Carlos.