On Feb 20, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2015, at 1:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25:54AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >>> this patch reverses the abort logic in pr30957-1.c, such that it aborts on >>> failure rather than on success. >> >> That sounds really weird. From the description it looks like it is a known >> bug >> that we don't return -0.0. >> If 0.0 is the right return value instead, I'd the test should be written as >> if (__builtin_copysignf (1.0, foo (0.0 / -5.0, 10)) != 1.0) >> abort (); >> to make it clear you are expecting positive 0. > > So, did you read the bug report? They expect the value -1.0, so, I think the > above is wrong?
Ignore that… I’ve read though more of the history and the whole think is just messier than I’d like. I now see why Tom proposed the patch he did.
