"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
> >>> The defaults for the Linux emulator are different than
> >>> the defaults for Linux. Linux sets some stuff up wrong,
> >>
> >> FreeBSD sets stuff up wrong. This is a choice between bad
> >> and worse, since the CPU does not support what you want.
> >
> > FreeBSD c
Stefan Hoffmeister wrote:
> >One obvious reason that the Linux approach is wrong is
> >that it ends up requiring the save and restore of FP
> >registers on context switches, which is overhead they
> >ate anyway, by doing TSS based context switching. The
> >amount of state with SSE is up to someth
(Choosing a random message to reply to ...)
While looking for commercial electronics CAD software for FreeBSD, I
came across Whitely Research Inc (http://www.srware.com/) which has
this note on their site:
http://www.srware.com/linux_numerics.txt
In light of this thread, I thought other
Terry Lambert writes:
> "Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>>> The defaults for the Linux emulator are different than
>>> the defaults for Linux. Linux sets some stuff up wrong,
>>
>> FreeBSD sets stuff up wrong. This is a choice between bad
>> and worse, since the CPU does not support what you want.
>
: On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:45:29 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>One obvious reason that the Linux approach is wrong is
>that it ends up requiring the save and restore of FP
>registers on context switches, which is overhead they
>ate anyway, by doing TSS based context switching. The
>amount of state
"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
> >> There are only two shared libaries in common (libc and libm) and
> >> both are the same on FreeBSD (in /compat/linux) and Linux.
> >>
> >> So any ideas on where the program is going wrong?
> >
> > man fpsetround
>
> That won't change a thing. Both systems round to
Terry Lambert writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> There are only two shared libaries in common (libc and libm) and
>> both are the same on FreeBSD (in /compat/linux) and Linux.
>>
>> So any ideas on where the program is going wrong?
>
> man fpsetround
That won't change a thing. Both systems r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below
> is the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD,
> Linux or Linux emulation under FreeBSD.
[ ... ]
> There are only two shared libaries in common (libc and libm) and
> both are the s
So the solution to my problem was to set the __INITIAL_NPXCW__ to
0x37F. What I can think of is that the freebsd binary sets
the Control Word to this before running but the linux binary
does not (because it is assumed to already be set by the kernel
at boot time). So I would think the linux ker
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> Same for gamma(53.27850) = 157.464664.
>
Figured out this problem. gamma is returning the result of lgamma.
--
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscrib
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
>
> exp(54) = 160.331128 is way way wrong, by orders of magnitude.
Sorry - programming error - I forgot to change gamma back to exp.
--
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >I also tried the same experiment with sin and gamma - then the problem
> >does not occur. Well except that the answer for gamma(53.278500) is
> >reported as 157.464664 which is way wrong.
>
> >When I tried it for x=52 they gave almost the same answer, only
> >se
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:58 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Yes, I tried out the program
>
> #include
> #include
> main() {
> double x,y;
> int i;
>
> x = 53.278500;
> y = exp(x);
> printf("%8lf\n",x);
> for(i=0;i printf("%x ",((unsigned char*)(&x))[i]);
> prin
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/14/2001
at 01:58 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>Yes, I tried out the program
>#include
>#include
>main() {
> double x,y;
> int i;
> x = 53.278500;
> y = exp(x);
> printf("%8lf\n",x);
> for(i=0;iprintf("%x ",((unsigned char*)
Yes, I tried out the program
#include
#include
main() {
double x,y;
int i;
x = 53.278500;
y = exp(x);
printf("%8lf\n",x);
for(i=0;ihttp://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:19 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 11:09:22AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below
>> is the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD,
>> Linux or Linux emulation
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:23 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> The correct answer to the level of accuracy you quote is:
> 137581029243568295877658.36934931
>
> Both are correct to about 15 sig figs, which is about what the precision
> of IEEE double precision arithmetic is supposed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/14/2001
>at 11:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> >Running natively under FreeBSD:
>
> >x = 53.2785
> >exp(x) = 137581029243568449912832.
>
> >Running natively under Linux:
>
> >x = 53.278500
> >exp(x) = 13758102924356
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/14/2001
>at 11:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below is
>> the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD, Linux or
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:19 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 11:09:22AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below
>> is the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD,
>> Linux or Linux emulation
The correct answer to the level of accuracy you quote is:
137581029243568295877658.36934931
Both are correct to about 15 sig figs, which is about what the precision
of IEEE double precision arithmetic is supposed to be.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So I have stumbled across a linux emulation b
On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 11:09:22AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below
> is the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD,
> Linux or Linux emulation under FreeBSD.
...
> Running natively under Linux:
>
> x = 53.27850
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/14/2001
at 11:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below is
>the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD, Linux or
>Linux emulation under FreeBSD.
>Running natively under FreeBSD:
>x = 53.2
So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below
is the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD,
Linux or Linux emulation under FreeBSD.
Running natively under FreeBSD:
x = 53.2785
exp(x) = 137581029243568449912832.
Running natively under Linux:
x
24 matches
Mail list logo
