On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 04:52:26PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2011-10-18 07:15:31 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > I have reopened the bug, but tagged it moreinfo + unreproducible given > > fma() has been implemented in eglibc 2.13, and that the testcases you > > provided now pass correctly on at least i386 and amd64. > > > > Please provide some more details or testcases. > > Ah, I didn't see that the bug that was opened upstream yeaterday > was against an old glibc version! Still, Bruno Haible said: > > "I see 6 different implementations of fma(), 4 implementations of fmaf(), > and 4 implementations of fmal() in the glibc source code. > How can you guarantee that all of them are thoroughly tested? > > The ones in math/s_fma.c, math/s_fmaf.c, math/s_fmal.c are definitely > buggy." > > But I wonder whether Debian supports a platform with such an > implementation. >
These implementation are the fallback for architectures without 64-bit or bigger double support, that is we don't have architectures using this code in Debian. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
