Message320474
[Tim]
> Mark, do you believe that 32-bit Linux uses a different libm?
I don't know. But I'd expect to see accuracy losses as a result of forcing 53-bit precision, and I wouldn't be totally surprised to see other more catastrophic failure modes (infinite iterations, for example). But I don't have any concrete information on the subject.
There's this from (an unofficial mirror of) the glibc x86 sources: https://github.com/bminor/glibc/blob/43b1048ab9418e902aac8c834a7a9a88c501620a/sysdeps/x86/fpu_control.h#L69
> #define _FPU_EXTENDED 0x300 /* libm requires double extended precision. */
But it's not clear to me whether that comment is intended to be a statement of fact, or indeed whether it's still true or just an ancient comment that should have been culled long ago.
Like I said, I just don't know, but I'd be worried about the law of unintended consequences.
Of course, with my Enthought hat on, I don't care, because we stopped worrying about 32-bit Linux long ago... :-) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2018-06-26 07:58:46 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients:
+ mark.dickinson, tim.peters, rhettinger, pitrou, vstinner, steven.daprano, r.david.murray, skrah, serhiy.storchaka, Serge Anuchin |
2018-06-26 07:58:46 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1529999926.84.0.56676864532.issue24567@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2018-06-26 07:58:46 | mark.dickinson | link | issue24567 messages |
2018-06-26 07:58:46 | mark.dickinson | create | |
|