X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 20:26:05 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <9628-Sun03Mar2002202605+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200203031723.g23HN3I04905@mother.ludd.luth.se> (message from
	Martin Str|mberg on Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:23:03 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: cygnus libm test
References:  <200203031723 DOT g23HN3I04905 AT mother DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:23:03 +0100 (MET)
> 
> According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > against standard.results.  Does the new compile only add new
> > inaccuracies, or does it add some and remove others?
> 
> It adds many and removes some.

That might mean that code generation was changed in significant ways.
Someone ought to look into this, but even if not, inaccuracies in the
last 2-3 bits of the mantissa are not very grave.

> > > log2 has two in bit 12 and one in bit 0!?
> > 
> > What results are those?  Are they finite or Inf/NaN?
> 
> Bit 12: (-Inf NaN)
> Bit 0: (NaN NaN)

These are known problems: we deviate (deliberately) from what the
Cygwin suite expects.

> > > log2 also has errno wrong-
> > 
> > What value of errno?  If log2 is documented to produce that value,
> > it's okay.
> 
> It says:
> In log2() using log2_vec.c:146, errno wrong:  0  1
> In log2() using log2_vec.c:147, errno wrong:  0  1

Ah, this one is in standard.results, and is another known deviation.

> > > sqrt has two in bit 0!?
> > 
> > That's a sign bit?  A NaN, perhaps?  (Our NaN has its sign bit set.)
> 
> Yes, (NaN NaN).

Known; disregard it.