[glibc] s390x: Regenerated ULPs

[Adhemerval Zanella Netto]

For some reason I was assuming I had applied this fix.  I will do and fix
s390x ulp file.

On 09/01/25 12:36, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> OK, sounds good, let's do that. 
> 
> Paul, in the future, it helps to add a "Reviewed-by: " line in the e-mail reply to the patch, 
> since this is picked up by patchwork and shows up when going through the list of submitted 
> patches (the "rb" column)... Thanks!
> https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/
> 
> Am Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2025, 16:05:40 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit schrieb Paul Zimmermann:
>>        Hi Stefan,
>>
>> yes, I believe we should revert 82688ca and apply patch 103895 from patchwork
>> (for which I gave a positive review).
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:01:35 +0100
>>> Cc: fweimer@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
>>>         Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
>>> From: Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> On 09.01.25 13:55, Paul Zimmermann wrote:
>>>>        Hi Stefan,
>>>>
>>>> after thought, Adhemerval already posted a patch for this issue:
>>>>
>>>> https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/patch/20250102143444.3574078-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org/
>>>>
>>>> Does that solve the issue on s390x?
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Yes, I've tried it on top of this commit without my ULPs update:
>>> f2be13300a (HEAD -> az-fix-acosf-20250109) math: Fix acosf when building
>>> with gcc <= 11
>>> 502a71c578 i686: Regenerate multiarch ulps
>>>
>>> And it solves the issue on s390x with my gcc 11.5 and 10.5.
>>> Shall I just revert my commit 82688ca3107c93d9eba6440981e473d1877b6281
>>> "s390x: Regenerated ULPs" or shall Adhemerval remove the float-ULPs as
>>> also done for other archs?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stefan
>>
> 
>