|
Message-ID: <7e9463-98a3-4b2-c10-e3fbf79a6b8@esi.com.au> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:39:44 +1000 (AEST) From: Damian McGuckin <damianm@....com.au> To: MUSL <musl@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: catan(z) On Sun, 11 Aug 2024, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Damian McGuckin <damianm@....com.au> [2024-08-12 00:01:01 +1000]: >> >> In this routine, there are 2 lines of code >> >> t = 0.5 * atan2(2.0 * x, a); >> w = _redupi(t); >> >> The first computes atan2() which returns a number in the range [-pi,+pi] >> which means that t is a number in the range [-pi/2,+pi/2]. >> >> As far as I understand, the routine _redupi(t) accepts a argument and >> reduces it into the range [-pi, +pi]. Am I mistaken? > > *reduces into [-pi/2, pi/2] Yes. Silly me. Why? Because ... atan2() returns a number in [-pi, +pi], 't' is in [-pi/2,+pi/2], hence, at least in this case, _redupi(t) just maps that 't' into that same range. There is some argument that if you handle the special cases at infinity separately (which I think MUSL should do but I do not have time at the moment), then one can assume that because pi/2 is irrational, then one should never have to deal with the end points in the chunk of code where those two lines of code seen above should appear. I will have a chat sometime with the guy who wrote that logic in a WG14 paper when I get a really clear head and can line him up. Thanks - Damian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.