Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 23:56:03 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: sidneym@...eaurora.org Cc: 'Rich Felker' <dalias@...c.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Hexagon DSP support * sidneym@...eaurora.org <sidneym@...eaurora.org> [2020-07-20 16:26:58 -0500]: > I removed fma/fmal/fmax/fmin/fabs from compiler-rt-builtins, > https://reviews.llvm.org/D82263 > The comparison with musl can be found here: > https://github.com/quic/musl/compare/hexagon but I've also attached the > patch. > > An assert in clang when building both musl and libc-test for hexagon was > fixed by, https://reviews.llvm.org/D80952 prior to this change > -frounding-math had to be used. > > The test-results are also attached. Everything is built with the > tip-of-tree llvm so sometimes results vary but these are the results I got > from this morning's clone. The only notable difference in the results would > be that both fma and fmal fail and this is because of the compiler-rt > change. I didn't add fma to musl because it require more complex assembly, > along the lines you saw in an earlier version with sqrt. the fma and sqrt failures are still not fully explained, e.g. this looks wrong: src/math/special/fma.h:42: RN fma(0x1p+0,0x1p+0,-0x1p-1074) want 0x1p+0 got -0x1.fffffp-43 ulperr -4503599627370496.000 = -0x1p+52 + 0x0p+0 the only target specific bit in fma is a_clz_64 so i would check that. e.g. a_clz_64(1ULL << 42) should give 21 (this computation happens during the fma test case above).
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.