https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109008
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I guess more debugging tomorrow. Because with the frange_nextafter it comes up
for the f1 to range
p[frange] double
[-2.22044604925031283432823045461545143383482334912930322712e-16
(-0x0.fffffffffffff8p-52),
4.44089209850062566865646090923090286766964669825860645425e-16
(0x0.fffffffffffff8p-51)]
But as can be seen on
double f1 (double eps) { double d = 1. + eps; if (d == 1.) return eps; return
0.0; }
int
main ()
{
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (-0x0.fffffffffffff8p-52));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (__builtin_nextafter
(-0x0.fffffffffffff8p-52, -42.0)));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (0x0.fffffffffffff8p-51));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (__builtin_nextafter (0x0.fffffffffffff8p-51,
42.0)));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (-0x1.0p-54));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (__builtin_nextafter (-0x1.0p-54, -42.0)));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (0x1.0p-53));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (__builtin_nextafter (0x1.0p-53, 42.0)));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (-0x0.8p-53));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (__builtin_nextafter (-0x0.8p-53, -42.0)));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (0x0.8p-52));
__builtin_printf ("%.32a\n", f1 (__builtin_nextafter (0x0.8p-52, 42.0)));
}
the correct exact range is what is written in the comment, i.e. [-0x1.0p-54,
0x1.0p-53]
aka [-0x0.8p-53, 0x0.8p-52].
