standards/82654: C99 long double math functions are missing
das at FreeBSD.ORG
Tue Jun 28 20:30:15 GMT 2005
The following reply was made to PR standards/82654; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Schultz <das at FreeBSD.ORG>
To: "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl at troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: standards/82654: C99 long double math functions are missing
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:19:48 -0400
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
> The enclosed patch implements logl(), log10l(), sqrtl(), and cbrtl().
> I'm sure someone will want bit twiddling or assembly code, but the
> c code works on both i386 and amd64.
Cool. I don't have much time to look at this right now, but I
definitely will want to go through this later. I have some
general comments about accuracy, though.
IEEE-754 says that algebraic functions (sqrt and cbrt in this
case) should always produce correctly rounded results. The sqrt()
and sqrtf() implementations handle this by computing an extra bit
of the result, and using this bit and whether the remainder is 0
or not to determine which way to round. This can be a bit tricky
to get right, but it can probably be done straightforwardly by
following fdlibm's example. Simply using native floating-point
arithmetic as you have done will probably not suffice, unfortunately,
so this is something that definitely needs to be fixed.
The transcendental functions (e.g. logl() and log10l()) are not
required to be correctly rounded because it is not known how to
ensure correct rounding in a bounded amount of time. However, the
guarantee made by fdlibm and most other math libraries is that it
will always be correctly rounded, except for a small percentage of
cases that are very close to halfway between two representable
numbers. For illustration, this might mean that 0.125000000000001
gets rounded to 0.12 instead of 0.13 if we had two decimal digits
Now, technically speaking, there's no *requirement* that these
transcendental functions be reasonably accurate. The old BSD math
library often gave errors of several ulps or worse on particular
``bad'' inputs. But it is certainly desirable that they work at
least as well as their double and float counterparts. One could
argue that most people don't care about the last few bits of
accuracy, but some people do (think Intel Pentium bug), and I worry
that adding routines with mediocre accuracy now will mean that
nobody will bother writing better ones later. Consider, for
instance, that glibc's implementations of fma() and most of the
complex math functions have been broken for years because they
were implemented by people who wanted to claim standards conformance
without fully understanding what they were doing. Then again, I
can't argue too much against your implementations given that nobody
seems to have implemented more accurate BSD-licensed routines yet.
If you'd like, I can point you to what are considered the cutting-
edge papers on how to implement these functions in software, but I
don't have time to work on it myself in the forseeable future.
Two other minor points:
- Looking briefly at your logl() and log10l() implementations,
I'm concerned about accuracy at inputs very close to 0.
- From my notes, the ``lowest-hanging fruit'', i.e. the unimplemented
long double functions that would be the easiest to implement
accurately, are fmodl(), remainderl(), and remquol(). These are
easy mainly because they can be implemented as modified versions
of their double counterparts, with a minimal amount of special-
casing for various long double implementations.
By the way, it's really great that someone has taken an interest
in this. One of these days, I should have more time to work on it...
More information about the freebsd-standards