From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B3F53858D39 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 16:09:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9B3F53858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=inria.fr DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:subject: references; bh=J8+jGMACjw4Z54orejMmePkcymlf9ySXorEf60iOMVc=; b=jGAYioKuG2P/J6ZLLvP2bOs74lGMaGf4Rz+3QXbq5tO7N2olK46GFcIU OCNFvZkzu7vaCUpLpEbI4kOPdSp6Yn3QPd6gz/QTXbDzSvAyWodHYGnyL PzKn5OUcvlGMkhD/vBQIddnSZe/8r0lNTofdiM9VqbDn3lSOfDhrOYP6J I=; Authentication-Results: mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=SoftFail smtp.mailfrom=Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@coriandre Received-SPF: SoftFail (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr is inclined to not designate 152.81.9.227 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=152.81.9.227; receiver=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr"; x-sender="Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr"; x-conformance=spf_only; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:128.93.142.0/24 ip4:192.134.164.0/24 ip4:128.93.162.160 ip4:89.107.174.7 mx ~all" Received-SPF: None (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@coriandre) identity=helo; client-ip=152.81.9.227; receiver=mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr"; x-sender="postmaster@coriandre"; x-conformance=spf_only X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,281,1669071600"; d="scan'208";a="91771016" Received: from coriandre.loria.fr (HELO coriandre) ([152.81.9.227]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Feb 2023 17:09:29 +0100 Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 17:09:28 +0100 Message-Id: From: Paul Zimmermann To: Paul Zimmermann Cc: newlib@sourceware.org, vincenzo.innocente@cern.ch In-Reply-To: (message from Paul Zimmermann on Wed, 08 Feb 2023 16:55:51 +0100) Subject: Re: error in tgammaf References: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: sorry I fixed the subject which was misleading. This is for tgammaf (and not tgamma), i.e., the single precision function. Paul > Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 16:55:51 +0100 > From: Paul Zimmermann > CC: vincenzo.innocente@cern.ch > > Hi, > > while testing Newlib 4.3.0, I also noticed the following regression > with respect to 4.2.0 for tgammaf: > > zimmerma@tartine:~/svn/tbd/20/src/binary32_exhaustive$ VERBOSE=-v ./doit2.newlib tgamma > Checking tgamma with newlib-4.3.0.20230120 > Using RedHat newlib > MPFR library: 4.2.0 > MPFR header: 4.2.0 (based on 4.2.0) > Checking function tgammaf with MPFR_RNDN > ... > libm wrong by up to nan ulp(s) [9223372036854775808] for x=-0x1p+0 > tgamma gives inf > mpfr_tgamma gives -nan > > For a negative integer, tgamma should return NaN. > > Best regards, > Paul Zimmermann