On 07/25/12 12:31, Steve Kargl wrote: > 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 Yes. It would be nice if long on the Intel was as long as the sparc64.Received on Wed Jul 25 2012 - 15:37:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:29 UTC