On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:27:55PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On 11-09-2012 16:10, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 2012-09-11 15:24, Steve Kargl wrote: > >> What is important is whether software built with clang functions > >> correctly. See for example, > >> > >> http://math-atlas.sourceforge.net/errata.html#WhatComp > > > > Yes, maths support, specifically precision, is admittedly still one of > > clang's (really llvm's) weaker points. It is currently not really a > > high priority item for upstream. > > > > This is obviously something that a certain part of our userbase will > > care a lot about, while most of the time they won't care so much about > > licensing or politics. So those people are probably better off using > > gcc for the time being. > > Does it affect the accuracy of libm functions? >
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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
