From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
To: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr>
Cc: newlib@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 16:53:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOox84sngSa7cxGxDj2QdkaSm4BpgiPW7WYUfwf42tKcJUVQbQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <p9u0jzoo9lod.fsf@coriandre.loria.fr>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3941 bytes --]
Hi Paul,
I don't seem to have a working simulator so I built a test on my x86 linux
and specified
all the newlib source files needed plus a stub function to avoid needing
our _malloc_r and
various _r methods. The test which does tgammaf(-1) returns inf whereas
glibc returns nan. I have an older gcc so
it isn't the level of gcc.
There are a number of gamma function patches made between 4.1.0 and 4.2.0
so one of them is likely the culprit
if you believe this has regressed.
-- Jeff J.
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 4:25 AM Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr>
wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I did investigate. In fact I now get the issue with tgammaf even with
> Newlib 4.2.0. It might be due to a change in the compiler used (I now use
> gcc 13.2.0) or in my testing framework.
>
> Can you reproduce the issue?
>
> For the binary64 pow function, the accuracy has greatly improved with
> respect
> to 4.2.0. We got an error of up to 636 ulps, and now the largest error I
> get
> after a few tests is 0.892 ulp, which is better than the Intel Math Library
> for this function (1.73 ulp).
>
> Paul
>
> > From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
> > Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:44:27 -0500
> > Cc: newlib@sourceware.org
> >
> >
> > [1:text/plain Show]
> >
> >
> > [2:text/html Hide Save:noname (3kB)]
> >
> > Hi Paul, the problem you reported hasn't been solved yet and the
> > snapshot is just a snapshot in time of the repo.
> >
> > Looking at the logs, I only see the following gamma change that occurs
> > between 4.2.0 and 4.3.0:
> >
> > commit ec69debcb977d6395f9e91ee20133de473484e20
> > Author: Andoni Arregi <andoni.arregui@gtd-gmbh.de>
> > Date: Fri Feb 11 12:16:00 2022 +0100
> >
> > Improve lgammaf range for very small cases
> >
> > The original cut for small arguments at |x|<2**-70 (copied from the
> > double version) produces that when computing nadj we get a subnormal
> > number for t*x and thus, the division of pi/subnormal will be INF and
> > the logarithm of it too, which is wrong as a result for lgammaf in
> this
> > range.
> > The proposed new limit seems to be safe and has been tested to
> > produce accurate results.
> > (Courtesy of Andreas Jung, ESA)
> >
> > I don't think this should have caused the regression you are seeing with
> -1
> > as input, but can you confirm
> > if it is? Otherwise, can you use the git bisect in concert with your
> test
> > to determine the
> > source of the regression?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -- Jeff J.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:03 AM Paul Zimmermann <
> Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > for what concerns the accuracy of math functions, the issue with huge
> > error
> > in pow (https://sourceware.org/pipermail/newlib/2023/020164.html) seems
> > to
> > have been fixed in 4.4.0, thanks!
> >
> > However, the regression for tgammaf(-1) with respect to 4.2.0 is still
> > there:
> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/newlib/2023/020170.html.
> >
> > Happy New Year,
> > Paul Zimmermann
> >
> > > From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
> > > Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 12:23:22 -0500
> > >
> > >
> > > [1:text/plain Show]
> > >
> > >
> > > [2:text/html Hide Save:noname (879B)]
> > >
> > > The 4.4.0 snapshot has been created and uploaded to the ftp site. For
> > > details on changes, see the NEWS file.
> > >
> > > If there are any issues, I'll have to deal with them in the New Year.
> > >
> > > Thanks everyone for contributing last minute changes to handle the
> > > c99/gcc-14 issues and thanks to all who made contributions/reviews
> > this
> > > year. Special thanks to Corinna for leading the project and reviewing
> > the
> > > lion's share of the code.
> > >
> > > Happy New Year everyone,
> > >
> > > -- Jeff J.
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-05 21:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-31 17:23 Jeff Johnston
2024-01-01 15:30 ` Mike Frysinger
2024-01-04 16:01 ` Paul Zimmermann
2024-01-04 18:44 ` Jeff Johnston
2024-01-05 9:25 ` Paul Zimmermann
2024-01-05 21:53 ` Jeff Johnston [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAOox84sngSa7cxGxDj2QdkaSm4BpgiPW7WYUfwf42tKcJUVQbQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jjohnstn@redhat.com \
--cc=Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr \
--cc=newlib@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).