Use of C99 extra long double math functions after r236148

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2012-Jul-27 13:26:11 +1000, Peter Jeremy <peter at server.rulingia.com> wrote:
>I've been writing a test harness to vet the special case handling of
>all the complex functions (excluding cpow so far).  Basically, it's
>just Appendix G.6 of WG14/N1256 turned into a C array, plus code to
>actually run the tests & interpret the results.  So far, it's about
>1100 lines of which about 1/3 is the test cases and is intended to run
>on x86/armle/sparc and FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris (I'm using Solaris and,
>to a lesser extent, Linux as a cross-check on my interpretation of the
>text).  Once I'm happy with it, I'll circulate it.  I was initially
>hoping to make it commitable but 8-char tabs and 80-char lines would
>require lots of line wrapping that would make it harder for me to
>follow.

My test harness can be found at http://www.rulingia.com/~peter/ctest.c
There are no special compilation options, it just needs to be linked
with '-lm' (and '-ldl' on Linux).  For normal use, just run the
executable - it will report any failures.  For "finite" arguments, it
currently uses 3π/4 and 32769 other random numbers (the latter is
S_COUNT+1).

It has two test modes for internal testing and debugging:
'-v' verifies that all the argument & result strings are valid and
that there's no duplication of argument vectors (for this purpose, it
doesn't consider '0' as finite and will incorrectly report '1' as an
invalid argument).
'-r' prints all the double-precision test vectors used.  This should
generate 3604951 lines of output.

The output should be reasonably self-explanatory except:
- double-precision function names are printed with a trailing 'd'
- an expected sign of '?' means "don't care".

It reports no errors on OpenSolaris but does report a number of what
appear to be valid errors on Linux.

Whilst I was debugging the code, I found the following elisp useful
for post-processing the output:

(progn (downcase-region (point-min) (point-max))
 (repl-regexp "^ [ ]c" "..c")
 (repl-regexp "^ c" ".c")
 (repl-regexp " *0x[0-9a-f]+ *" " ")
 (repl-regexp " *0x[0-9a-f]+$" "")
 (repl-regexp "infinit[y]" "inf")
 (repl-regexp "0\\.0+e\\+0+\\>" "zer")
 (repl-regexp "1\\.0+e\\+0+\\>" "one")
 (repl-regexp "3\\.14159[0-9]+e\\+00" "pi.")
 (repl-regexp "1\\.57079[0-9]+e\\+00" "p_2")
 (repl-regexp "7\\.85398[0-9]+e\\-01" "p_4")
 (repl-regexp "2\\.35619[0-9]+e\\+00" "3p4")
 (repl-regexp "[0-9]\\.[0-9]+e[-\\+][0-9]+" "fin")
 (repl-regexp "^ *\012" "")
 (repl-regexp "\012 *=" " =")
 (repl-regexp "\012 *expected: *" " # ")
 (repl-regexp "\012 *want *" " # ")
 (repl-regexp " +" " ")
 (repl-regexp "-\\+" " ")
 (repl-regexp " +$" "")
 (repl-regexp "\\([^)]\\)$" "\\1 %%")
 (repl-regexp "^\\(.*= \\)\\(.\\)\\(...\\)\\( .*# \\)\\(.\\)\\3\\(.*\\) %%" "\\1\\2\\3\\4\\5\\3\\6 \\2\\5")
 (repl-regexp "\\([^)]\\)$" "\\1 %%")
 (repl-regexp "^\\(.*= .... \\)\\(.\\)\\(...\\)\\( # .... \\)\\(.\\)\\3\\(.*\\) .." "\\1\\2\\3\\4\\5\\3\\6 \\2\\5")
 (repl-regexp "^\\(......\\)f\\(:.*\012\\)\\1d\\2\\1l\\2" "\\1x\\2")
 (repl-regexp "^\\(......\\)d\\(:.*\012\\)\\1f\\2\\1l\\2" "\\1x\\2")
)

This turns the output into a series of lines like:
..ctanx: +3p4 +inf = +zer +one # -zer +one +- ++
  fn  ^  Argument     Result     Expected  XX YY
      +- precision (f/d/l) or 'x' if all 3 affected

XX and YY are the real and imaginary actual and expected result signs
or '%' if the category differs between expected and actual.  The above
line (from the Linux output) means that
ctan(3π/4 + I*Inf) returns (+0 + I*1) instead of (-0 + I*1)
'+-' means that the signs of the real parts differ
'++' means that the signs of the imaginary parts are both '+'

Please let me know if you find any errors or have any comments.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-numerics/attachments/20120812/6e26f19e/attachment.pgp