On 2023-04-20 08:59, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
+ r.set (type, dconstm1, dconst1);
See above, are we sure we can use [-1., 1.] range safely, or should that be
[-1.-Nulps, 1.+Nulps] for some kind of expected worse error margin of the
implementation? And ditto for -frounding-math, shall we increase that
interval in that case, or is [-1., 1.] going to be ok?
Do any math implementations generate results outside of [-1., 1.]? If
yes, then it's a bug in those implementations IMO, not in the range
assumption. It feels wrong to cater for what ought to be trivially
fixable in libraries if they ever happen to generate such results.
Thanks,
Sid
