Sascha Brawer writes: > > "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.
No, not necessarily -- there's no requirement that the Java programming language be implemented on a Java VM. But I think you're right in that IEEE doubles must be used for the argument. Of course gcj does that already. The place gcj falls is in solveQuadratic when c (which actually has the value 0.10000000000000001) is read from the argument array and preserved in high precision through the calculation. gcj is performing a more accurate calculation than Java specifies. > Thus, I don't understand why the test case would need to be declared FP- > strict. You're right. It wouldn't make any difference in this case. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath

