Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:46:08 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Q: dealing with missing removal of excess precision On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:15:30PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > 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. Indeed, I just discovered that... > 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. I think it's just that I was planning to do further review after release rather than before since I'm trying to get the release out.. > > 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. Yes, what I'm looking at right now is fixing inverse trig and log functions and removing the exp asm (since the exp logic is way too messy for me to feel comfortable modifying right now) and possibly re-adding it later as inline asm with the flow control in C. Rich
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.