From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 2 17:35:37 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA5316A417 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:35:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9773D13C461 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:35:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost.apl.washington.edu [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l92HWbWO012763; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:32:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l92HWbLx012762; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:32:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:32:37 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Bruce Evans , freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <20071002173237.GA12586@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20070928152227.GA39233@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20071001173736.U1985@besplex.bde.org> <20071002001154.GA3782@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20071002172317.GA95181@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071002172317.GA95181@VARK.MIT.EDU> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Subject: Re: long double broken on i386? X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:35:38 -0000 On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:23:18PM -0400, David Schultz wrote: > > Although it would be nice to get all this stuff right the first > time, very few people are going to care if our trig functions are > accurate to within 1 ulp for huge inputs; many competing math > libraries don't guarantee that anyway. A programmer who asks for > sinl(1000000000*PI + 0.01) is going to be disappointed regardless, > because you can't represent the input accurately using IEEE-754 > floating point. Most people just care about taking a program that > uses sinl() and getting it to compile and run on FreeBSD, and most > of those programs don't call sinl() with huge arguments. > > Anyway, my point is that if you have something that works > reasonably well and doesn't have egregious errors, my suggestion > is to just commit it and not kill yourself over whether the > argument reduction is correct in the last ulp. Hi David, There are a few problems: 1) I don't have commit access. 2) I need to do style(9) clean-up pass. 3) I've only tested these on i386 and amd64, and I know these fail for sparc64. 4) Most importantly, I don't know how the project wants to handle the 53 vs 64 bit default fpu setting on i386. PS: There is also the minor possibility of giving bde either a heartache or death via laughter when he finally sees what I have done. :) -- Steve