1 |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:49:03 -0700 |
2 |
Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> |
5 |
> Do you have any info about _any_ system passing this 100% successfully? |
6 |
> |
7 |
|
8 |
If you look at the log files for various systems that are found in the |
9 |
original source code (http://www.netlib.org/fp) you will see that SunOS |
10 |
passed 100% but SunOS with GCC did not. These results were from 1995. |
11 |
|
12 |
> What about that the code itself might have a bug in it? |
13 |
|
14 |
The package is not documented at all, but the few references to the ucbtest |
15 |
don't find any fault with it. |
16 |
|
17 |
However, this thread has strayed a little from the main theme. I just |
18 |
happened to notice that the cabsd routines failed on my machine and |
19 |
was wondering what could have caused the failure. It turns out that |
20 |
the latest GCC somehow produces bad code. |
21 |
|
22 |
The ucbtest itself should not be of much concern. The failures for |
23 |
the trig functions, I assume, are because the error is greater than |
24 |
1 ulp and the upper bound for these errors is usually stated to be |
25 |
1 ulp (although this is not part of the IEEE standard). |
26 |
|
27 |
But failures for ceil(), floor(), and cosh() do seem to be of some concern. |
28 |
The file clib_DP.output should be examined to see what actually happened |
29 |
with those functions. |
30 |
|
31 |
There are other FP test packages available, although not many, and most |
32 |
of these are without documentation and with messy source code as well. |
33 |
Someone or some organization needs to write a comprehensive, well documented, |
34 |
and neat test package for FP. The problem is that FP is a very abstruse area |
35 |
that few people want to bother with and that even fewer possess the |
36 |
qualifications for. |
37 |
|
38 |
Frank Peters |