On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 07:19:48PM +0200, Roman Divacky wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 08:12:30AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > I'm not sure if anyone has done any extensive testing. > > I've started to run some of my test codes to compare > > certain functions in a clang-compiled libm, gcc-compiled > > libm, and reference solutions generated from math/mpfr. > > For a locally patched j0f, I found that clang gave > > much worse accuracy. If I revert the local patch, > > clang and gcc are to give the same results. Unfortnately, > > an unpatched j0f gives 500000 ULP errors. > > Steve, > > Can you please provide a small self contained test case that shows > that clang is doing worse on accuracy than gcc? > > So that we can analyze it and decide if it's a bug in the code or > in the compiler. So far we know absolutely nothing. > > Thank you, Roman Unfortunately, supplying a test is going to be problematic. I thought I had a diff in one of my development trees, so I reverted the working copy of msun/e_j0f.c to stock source. gcc and clang give consistent results with stock e_j0f.c. When I went to re-apply my local changes, I discovered that I no longer had a diff. I think I can recreate the problematic code, but it will need to wait until the weekend. -- SteveReceived on Tue Sep 11 2012 - 16:13:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:30 UTC