On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:27:43PM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > On 07/25/12 11:29, Rainer Hurling wrote: > > >Many thanks to you three for implementing expl() with r238722 and r238724. > > > >I am not a C programmer, but would like to ask if the following example > >is correct and suituable as a minimalistic test of this new C99 function? > > > > (program deleted) > > > >Compiled with 'c99 -o math_expl math_expl.c -lm' and running afterwards > >it gives me: > > > >exp(2.000000) is > >7.3890560989306504069 > > > >expl(2.000000) is > >7.38905609893065022739794 > > > > Just as a point of comparison, here is the answer computed using > Mathematica: > > N[Exp[2], 50] > 7.3890560989306502272304274605750078131803155705518 > > As you can see, the expl solution has only a few digits more accuracy > that exp. Unless you are using sparc64 hardware. flame:kargl[204] ./testl -V 2 ULP = 0.2670 for x = 2.000000000000000000000000000000000e+00 mpfr exp: 7.389056098930650227230427460575008e+00 libm exp: 7.389056098930650227230427460575008e+00 -- SteveReceived on Wed Jul 25 2012 - 15:31:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:29 UTC