* newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created @ 2023-12-31 17:23 Jeff Johnston 2024-01-01 15:30 ` Mike Frysinger 2024-01-04 16:01 ` Paul Zimmermann 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Jeff Johnston @ 2023-12-31 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Newlib [-- 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created 2023-12-31 17:23 newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created Jeff Johnston @ 2024-01-01 15:30 ` Mike Frysinger 2024-01-04 16:01 ` Paul Zimmermann 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Mike Frysinger @ 2024-01-01 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Johnston; +Cc: Newlib [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created 2023-12-31 17:23 newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created Jeff Johnston 2024-01-01 15:30 ` Mike Frysinger @ 2024-01-04 16:01 ` Paul Zimmermann 2024-01-04 18:44 ` Jeff Johnston 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Paul Zimmermann @ 2024-01-04 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Johnston; +Cc: newlib 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created 2024-01-04 16:01 ` Paul Zimmermann @ 2024-01-04 18:44 ` Jeff Johnston 2024-01-05 9:25 ` Paul Zimmermann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jeff Johnston @ 2024-01-04 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Zimmermann; +Cc: newlib [-- 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. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created 2024-01-04 18:44 ` Jeff Johnston @ 2024-01-05 9:25 ` Paul Zimmermann 2024-01-05 21:53 ` Jeff Johnston 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Paul Zimmermann @ 2024-01-05 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Johnston; +Cc: newlib 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created 2024-01-05 9:25 ` Paul Zimmermann @ 2024-01-05 21:53 ` Jeff Johnston 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Jeff Johnston @ 2024-01-05 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Zimmermann; +Cc: newlib [-- 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. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-01-05 21:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2023-12-31 17:23 newlib-4.4.0 yearly snapshot created 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 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).