newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created

newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created

[Jeff Johnston]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 460 bytes --]

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.

Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 293 bytes --]

On 31 Dec 2023 12:23, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> The 4.4.0 snapshot has been created and uploaded to the ftp site.  For
> details on changes, see the NEWS file.

update the website too when you get a chance ?  i think only a few people
have write access to that vs the main newlib git repo.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created

[Paul Zimmermann]

       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.

Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created

[Jeff Johnston]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2325 bytes --]

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.
>
>

Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created

[Paul Zimmermann]

       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.

Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created

[Jeff Johnston]

[-- 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.
>
>