[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 20:15:30 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Q: dealing with missing removal of excess precision
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Rich Felker wrote:
> I think I might like to go ahead and apply these patches now, or at
> least some of them -- the ones fixing excess precision -- rather
> waiting, because I got a report of a nasty bug stemming from excess
> precision of the inverse trig functions:
That might be exactly the empty set of patches, as I did not yet post
any for functions that might return with excess precision.
Be advised that I found bugs in my patches, so given that no one so far
has pointed them out on the mailing list indicates that either nobody
bothered to review, or people are keeping the findings to themselves.
> If writing and testing the remaining i386 functions before release is
> not practical, I wonder if just removing the asm for now, and adding
> back the new code in next release cycle would be a good idea. Or I
> could just leave it, but I don't like making a release with "known
> bugs of consequence" like this.
I think fixing excess precision in inverse trig functions might be
easier than removing the asm entirely.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
