On Sun, 9 Aug 2026, Theo Buehler wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 09, 2026 at 11:35:56AM -0400, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> 
> The way I understand it, they only want to skip or xfail some tests for
> older glibc, not for !glibc, so I think the logic is what they wanted.
> 
> > With this and the local catan/catanf fixes I have for libm I get down to 9 
> > remaining failures on amd64.
> 
> I don't follow the reasoning (why do you say that AVX dispatch requires
> glibc?) and I'm not convinced the _glibc_older_than part is correct,
> but the diff does improve things on arm64 as well:
> 

you're right. I'll drop that bit. I think I was looking at the wrong 
thing in the numpy tests.