Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> On 26 April 2016 at 04:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> In short, these tests suggest that we need a coding pattern like
>> this:
>> volatile float8 asin_x = asin(x);
>> return (asin_x / asin_0_5) * 30.0;
> Agreed. That looks like the least hacky way of solving the problem. I
> think it's more readable when the logic is kept local, and it's
> preferable to avoid any compiler-specific options or global flags that
> would affect other code.
OK, I've pushed a change along these lines. Peter, would you see whether
HEAD fixes it for you?
The next time somebody proposes that we can get exact results out of
floating-point arithmetic, I'm going to run away screaming.
regards, tom lane