> "TT" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "AH" == Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AH> It looks to me like this is a test of exact java strictfp AH> compliance. gcj fails, because it isn't strictfp compliant. TT> On top of that, to guarantee the same results everywhere we would need TT> to declare both the test case and the code in Classpath `strictfp'. AH> Yes. I agree for the code in Classpath. But why the test case? The tested method stores its results in a double[], which means that a 'dastore' instruction gets executed. According to the Java VM specification, 2nd edition, 'dastore' must perform a value set conversion, even in a method that is not FP-strict [1]. [1] <http://java.sun.com/docs/books/vmspec/2nd-edition/html/ Instructions2.doc3.html#dastore> All other ways for passing a double value between methods (such as dreturn, putfield, putstatic, invoke* etc.) require value set conversion, too. Thus, I don't understand why the test case would need to be declared FP- strict. Of course, this would be different if the test did some calculations with the checked value, e.g. by converting the double value to a float; the 'd2f' instruction may behave differently depending on whether the method is FP-strict. But since it merely compares the value with a constant, the test case should come to the same outcome everywhere if the tested code is FP-strict. I certainly would not mind declaring test code fpstrict, but I'd really like to understand the reason. Can you enlighten me? -- Sascha Sascha Brawer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.dandelis.ch/people/brawer/ _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
