> From: Daniel Dickman <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2022 16:36:33 -0500 > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 4:18 PM Mark Kettenis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > From: Greg Steuck <[email protected]> > > > Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2022 12:47:14 -0800 > > > > > > Greg Steuck <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > This was reduced from a ghc test. The results of the program differ > > > > between OpenBSD 7.0-current-amd64 and a couple of other systems: > > > > > > Thanks to phessler@ for testing on arm64 where the bug doesn't happen. > > > This patch makes OpenBSD-amd64 work the rest of the systems. I added > > > i386 as it was also similarly broken (but didn't test the change yet). > > > > As I said on icb, NetBSD removed all of the x86 assembly sin/cos/tan > > implementations because: > > > > "The x87 hardware uses a bad approximation to pi for argument reduction" > > > > So I think we should use the software fallbacks for all of these > > functions (and remove the broken assembly implementations). > > > > I don't think it makes sense to just remove tanf() and leave the > > others in place. > > > > > > Here's the link to the commit Mark referenced: > https://github.com/NetBSD/src/commit/4f9e11b0dddf04640fe0553a9133a471af613627 > > And then the actual implementations were removed in this commit: > https://github.com/NetBSD/src/commit/870f792ccadb412e522f37caec6028b0076a871b > > So I guess this is the list of functions to remove, Mark?
Yes. > I'm testing this on i386 with numpy to see if regress tests improve. > > s_cos.S > s_cosf.S > s_sin.S > s_sinf.S > s_tan.S > s_tanf.S >
