* issue with tgamma
@ 2024-01-05 10:49 Paul Zimmermann
[not found] ` <BN2P110MB154427B901AD06FB47A831F59A66A@BN2P110MB1544.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Zimmermann @ 2024-01-05 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: newlib
Hi,
I discovered the following issue with tgamma: for x=-0x1.13a5ccd87c9bbp+1008
it yields +Inf instead of NaN:
Checking tgamma with newlib-4.4.0.20231231
tgamma 0 -1 -0x1.13a5ccd87c9bbp+1008 [-nan] [inf] inf inf
libm gives inf
mpfr gives -nan
This issue was present in earlier versions of Newlib, but we only found it
recently since we improved our testing framework.
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Fw: issue with tgamma
[not found] ` <BN2P110MB154427B901AD06FB47A831F59A66A@BN2P110MB1544.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
@ 2024-01-05 17:34 ` C Howland
2024-01-08 14:45 ` Paul Zimmermann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: C Howland @ 2024-01-05 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: newlib
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1626 bytes --]
> *From:* Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 5, 2024 5:49 AM
> *To:* newlib@sourceware.org <newlib@sourceware.org>
> *Subject:* issue with tgamma
>
> Hi,
>
> I discovered the following issue with tgamma: for
> x=-0x1.13a5ccd87c9bbp+1008
> it yields +Inf instead of NaN:
>
> Checking tgamma with newlib-4.4.0.20231231
> tgamma 0 -1 -0x1.13a5ccd87c9bbp+1008 [-nan] [inf] inf inf
> libm gives inf
> mpfr gives -nan
>
> This issue was present in earlier versions of Newlib, but we only found it
> recently since we improved our testing framework.
>
> Paul
>
> This strictly is OK, as the standards allow either a range or domain
error for negative integers, and domain errors may return an
implementation-defined value. It most likely has been this way since the
1993 date in the source file, which includes
* 5. Special Cases
* lgamma(2+s) ~ s*(1-Euler) for tiny s
* lgamma(1)=lgamma(2)=0
* lgamma(x) ~ -log(x) for tiny x
* lgamma(0) = lgamma(inf) = inf
* lgamma(-integer) = +-inf
(The tgamma function ends up using the lgamma function.)
POSIX does have an implied preference of sorts for the NaN return, so
changing it could possibly be considered a small improvement even if not
necessary--although it is strange that they define the result for argument
0 differently, calling for INF there, seems inconsistent.
(It's somewhat interesting that the MPFR return value you show is
-NaN. I suppose they chose that to help reflect it being due to a negative
argument.)
Craig
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Fw: issue with tgamma
2024-01-05 17:34 ` Fw: " C Howland
@ 2024-01-08 14:45 ` Paul Zimmermann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Zimmermann @ 2024-01-08 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: C Howland; +Cc: newlib
Hi Craig,
you are perfectly right. I'll have to adapt our testing framework.
However, does Newlib yield a domain or range error? I cannot test,
since I have to provide a fake errno to be able to compile my program
with Newlib's libm.a.
Paul
> From: C Howland <cc1964t@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:34:43 -0500
>
>
> [1:text/plain Show]
>
>
> [2:text/html Hide Save:noname (2kB)]
>
> From: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr>
> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2024 5:49 AM
> To: newlib@sourceware.org <newlib@sourceware.org>
> Subject: issue with tgamma
>
> Hi,
>
> I discovered the following issue with tgamma: for
> x=-0x1.13a5ccd87c9bbp+1008
> it yields +Inf instead of NaN:
>
> Checking tgamma with newlib-4.4.0.20231231
> tgamma 0 -1 -0x1.13a5ccd87c9bbp+1008 [-nan] [inf] inf inf
> libm gives inf
> mpfr gives -nan
>
> This issue was present in earlier versions of Newlib, but we only found
> it
> recently since we improved our testing framework.
>
> Paul
>
> This strictly is OK, as the standards allow either a range or domain
> error for negative integers, and domain errors may return an
> implementation-defined value. It most likely has been this way since the
> 1993 date in the source file, which includes
> * 5. Special Cases
> * lgamma(2+s) ~ s*(1-Euler) for tiny s
> * lgamma(1)=lgamma(2)=0
> * lgamma(x) ~ -log(x) for tiny x
> * lgamma(0) = lgamma(inf) = inf
> * lgamma(-integer) = +-inf
> (The tgamma function ends up using the lgamma function.)
> POSIX does have an implied preference of sorts for the NaN return, so
> changing it could possibly be considered a small improvement even if not
> necessary--although it is strange that they define the result for argument 0
> differently, calling for INF there, seems inconsistent.
> (It's somewhat interesting that the MPFR return value you show is -NaN.
> I suppose they chose that to help reflect it being due to a negative
> argument.)
> Craig
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-01-08 14:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-01-05 10:49 issue with tgamma Paul Zimmermann
[not found] ` <BN2P110MB154427B901AD06FB47A831F59A66A@BN2P110MB1544.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
2024-01-05 17:34 ` Fw: " C Howland
2024-01-08 14:45 ` Paul Zimmermann
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).