Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2000/05/16/10:46:27
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2000, Eric Rudd wrote:
>
> > Nor can I. The decisive argument for me was my inability to
> > conceive of any test of "double" trig functions that used only
> > "double" arithmetic, yet managed to reveal such range-reduction
> > errors.
>
> Perhaps some multiple-precision package could help. Using it, you could
> create test cases, like djtst does in the Cygnus test suite part by
> using Steven Mishier's quad-precision functions, and then run the long
> double functions on those test cases. MP code is slow, but since you
> only generate the test cases once, this should not be a problem.
Yes, I already have such a test program, but that wasn't my point. The
question is whether a user doing normal double-precision computations
would ever be materially affected by such errors. If I could exhibit a
practical computation that succeeded with perfect range reduction, but
failed with 66-bit range reduction, then one would have a practical
objection. I was attempting to argue that the difficulty of devising such
a computation (without resorting to multiple precision) is by itself a
good indication that these errors are of no consequence to most users.
-Eric Rudd
rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com
- Raw text -