Re: patch with larger errors for "float"

[Carlos O'Donell <codonell at redhat dot com>]

On 1/21/20 12:31 PM, paul zimmermann wrote:
>        Dear Carlos,
> 
> thank you for your detailed review of my patch. Attached is a v2.
> I removed test cases for atan2, cosh, erf and sin which did not
> give larger errors, as noticed by Joseph (probably because I did
> not use the testrun.sh wrapper, thus I used a previous glibc version).
> 
>> Just to confirm, does it pass make check without regression?
> 
> well, not really. I get *before* and after my patch:
> 
> Summary of test results:
>     141 FAIL

This is very bad. What are these failures?

>    5025 PASS
>      34 UNSUPPORTED
>      17 XFAIL
>       2 XPASS
> 

Could you please also review Joseph's comment to add the ULPs
to libm-test-ulps for all 10 functions?

If you have actually found 10 functions with specific inputs
that have higher error bounds we should expect to see those
larger error bounds reflected in the libm-test-ulps file.

As it stands it looks like either only 6 functions have larger
error bounds, or as Joseph says there is a difference between
how mpcheck and glibc compute ULPs.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.