Most of the long double math functions as prescribed by C99 are missing. Fix: 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.
FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org wrote: > >Category: standards > >Responsible: freebsd-standards > >Synopsis: C99 long double math functions are missing > >Arrival-Date: Sat Jun 25 23:40:12 GMT 2005 > The attached files implement hypotl() and cabsl(). The documentation has been updated. Note hypot(3) manpage refers to a non-existent cabs.c file. -- Steve http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/
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 of accuracy. 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... --David
FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org wrote: > Thank you very much for your problem report. > It has the internal identification `standards/82654'. > The individual assigned to look at your > report is: freebsd-standards. > > You can access the state of your problem report at any time > via this link: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=82654 > > >Category: standards > >Responsible: freebsd-standards > >Synopsis: C99 long double math functions are missing > >Arrival-Date: Sat Jun 25 23:40:12 GMT 2005 > Attached is a new implementation of logl(3) and diff to the exp.3 man page. The method to my implementation of the long double log should be acceptable for 64-bit precision and follow the following steps: 1) Deal with special cases 2) Split the argument into fraction, f, and exponent, n, with frexpl 3) Use a look-up table for 128 entries for log(f_n) where the interval [1/2,1) is split into 128 equally spaced intervals. 4) Use polynomial approximations for interpolation a) Start with Taylor's series where x is in [0,1/128] and truncate retaining the x**9 term, i.e., error of order 8e-22. b) Transform polynomial into range [-1,1] c) Rewrite transformed polynomial in an expansion of Chebyshev polynomials d) Reduce the Chebyshev polynomials to a polynomial of order x**8. 5) Run a boat load of tests. In the following test, "./log 1000000 10" means 1 million random arguments to logf, log, and logl are generated such that x = f*2**e and e is in [-10,10] and f is in [1/2,1). On i386 (53-bit precision), a comparison of logf, log, and logl to GMP/MPFR shows the following results. The legend is read as follows: R --> a difference of 1 in the last decimal digit 1 --> a difference of more than 1 in last decimal digit 2 --> a difference occurs in the 2nd to last decimal digit 3 --> a difference occurs in the 3rd to last decimal digit 4 --> a difference occurs in the 4th (or larger) to last decimal digit FLT --> 24-bit floating point DBL --> 53-bit double floating point LDBL -> 53-bit long double floating point on i386 -> 64-bit long double floating point on amd64 kargl[216] ./log 1000000 1 Checking logf, log, and logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures FLT: 1128 85 18 0 10 9.90536e-01 1.09909e+00 DBL: 314483 185399 6972 7062 16245 3.67892680689692e-01 1.99999806284904e+00 LDBL: 316817 185429 6965 7071 16240 3.67892680689692e-01 1.99999806284904e+00 kargl[217] ./log 1000000 10 Checking logf, log, and logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures FLT: 237 14 6 0 0 9.90536e-01 1.05196e+00 DBL: 141135 38632 1289 1269 2959 3.67997204419225e-01 2.71815394610167e+00 LDBL: 144160 38639 1289 1266 2957 3.67901860736310e-01 2.71815394610167e+00 kargl[218] ./log 1000000 120 Checking logf, log, and logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures FLT: 32 0 0 0 0 DBL: 23673 3498 128 134 263 3.68287028279155e-01 2.71191326901317e+00 LDBL: 44026 3503 128 134 263 3.68287028279155e-01 2.71191326901317e+00 kargl[219] ./log 1000000 1020 Checking log and logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures DBL: 3761 439 17 9 32 3.70691583026201e-01 2.67239280417562e+00 LDBL: 28123 437 17 10 31 3.70691583026201e-01 2.70551693812013e+00 kargl[220] ./log 1000000 16000 Checking logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures LDBL: 30873 30 0 0 4 9.05885221436620e-01 2.32185203954577e+00 For i386 (53-bit precision), we see the implementation of logl is consistent with the implementation of log. Note, my comparison function converts the long double x to an ASCII string via scanf and the mpfr type is also converted to an ASCII string. Thus, a rounding error can occur in my numerical implementation, gdtoa, or mpfr_get_str and is the reason why I make a distinction between R and 1 in my tables. Note, the "Range of Failures" excludes the differences under R and is fairly well localized to a small range in x. On amd64 (64-bit precision), we find troutmask:sgk[211] ./log 1000000 1 Checking logf, log, and logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures FLT: 4105 104 23 0 13 9.90094e-01 1.10419e+00 DBL: 5586 0 0 0 0 LDBL: 124664 631825 61534 8867 95289 2.50107496511191130e-01 1.99999793246388435e+00 troutmask:sgk[212] ./log 1000000 10 Checking logf, log, and logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures FLT: 1583 17 2 0 1 9.90414e-01 1.09967e+00 DBL: 2511 0 0 0 0 LDBL: 480101 131205 12991 1654 17324 1.00236730759206694e-03 1.02341860389709473e+03 troutmask:sgk[213] ./log 1000000 120 Checking logf, log, and logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures FLT: 254 1 0 0 0 1.05113e+00 1.05113e+00 DBL: 407 0 0 0 0 LDBL: 113720 12165 1176 151 1566 5.22837305538814689e-05 2.19174624633789062e+04 troutmask:sgk[214] ./log 1000000 1020 Checking log and logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures DBL: 64 0 0 0 0 LDBL: 26339 1465 153 17 170 1.04225044424310909e-04 1.45063449859619141e+04 troutmask:sgk[215] ./log 1000000 16000 Checking logl ... R 1 2 3 4 Range of Failures LDBL: 15995 78 10 2 12 2.05640358899472631e-04 2.63248902320861816e+02 If I restrict the test program and logl to 53-bit precision for logl, we find all columns marked with 1, 2, 3, and 4 are zero for logl. If neither das or bde object, I would like to see logl.c committed to libm. With logl committed, I have implementations of log2f, log2, and log2l also ready for the tree. -- Steve http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/
My latest effort to implement logl() has some problems. In particular, bde has shown me that catastrophic cancellation can lead to enormous errors for value near 1. So, back to the drawing broad. -- Steve http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/
State Changed From-To: open->closed Closed at submitter's request.
State Changed From-To: closed->open Although submitter has lost interest in this one, on second examination it sounds as though it might still be a problem, so reopen.
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-standards->freebsd-numerics Over to -numerics. It looks like at least half of this has already made it into releases, and the other half is in head, so it may be that this PR can be put into "patched" state now.
All of the long double functions mentioned in this PR have been implemented, and have been available in libm for over a year.