https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2) > > --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > Can you please uncomment the > > // std::cout << i << ' ' << std::string_view (str1, ptr1) << '\n'; > > and > > // std::cout << i << ' ' << std::string_view (str1, ptr5) << '\n'; > > lines in the test, so that it is clear at least which test it is on? > > Sure. This is supposed to print u, I assume ;-) Oops, sure. > > The line before the assertion failure is > > 1.18973e+4932 1e+4932 > /vol/gcc/src/hg/master/local/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/to_chars/ > float128_c++23.cc:66: void test(std::chars_format): Assertion 'ec2 == > std::errc() && ptr2 - str2 == ptr1 - str1' failed. > > i.e. LDBL_MAX. This is weird. If line 66 is reached, fmt must be std::chars_format::fixed and in that case ptr1 - str1 should be 4933 and str1 should be that many chars long string starting with 11897314953572317650857593266280070161964690526416940455296988842121635797553123923249740128484620735259020335647491268597552654335738044626726987519452614908534619587250212628458657994054044935746815 If you get just 1e+4932 when asked for fixed format, something is just wrong, that is scientific or general format. > > > If line 66 fails, it is a fixed printing test trying to verify > > that the string created by line 60 was actually the minimal. > > It doesn't now reliably: I compiled with -g3 -O0 to be able to check > things with gdb if needed. > > > On SPARC Solaris, I assume long double is IEEE quad, and it is the shortest > > version, so should use ryu library for both cases. > > It is, although only ever implemented in software. > > > Line 74 failure is about whether the created string can be read back, > > in that case for IEEE quad fast_float library can't be used and so it should > > use newlocale/uselocale/strtold/uselocale/freelocale, or if the OS doesn't > > support newlocale/uselocale/freelocale most likely just strtod with lost > > precision (so in that case the test would fail) on line 74. > > I'm not seeing the failure on l.74 any longer, even with the default > optimization options. There has been an effort to introduce an xpg7 > locale, but that had quite a number of unresolved issues (both on AIX > and Solaris) and was never finished. Currently, we're stuck with > generic.
