On 5/27/24 4:17 PM, Jivan Hakobyan wrote:
Ya, makes sense -- I guess the current values aren't that exciting for
execution, but we could just add some more interesting ones...
During the development of the patch, I have an issue with large
numbers (2e34, -2e34). They are used in gfortran.fortran-torture/
execute/ intrinsic_aint_anint.f90 test. Besides that, a benchmark
from Spec 2017 also failed (can not remember which one), Now we
haven't an issue with them, Of course, I can add additional tests
with large numbers. But it will be double-check (first fortran's
test)
So i think the question is what do we want to do in the immediate term.
We can remove the test to get cleaner testresults on rv32. I'm not a
big fan of removing tests, but this test just doesn't make sense on rv32
as-is.
We could leave things alone for now on the assumption the test will be
rewritten to check for calls to the proper routines and possibly
extended to include runtime verification.
I tend to lean towards the first. That obviously wouldn't close the
door on re-adding the test later with runtime verification and such.
Palmer, do you have a strong opinion either way?
jeff
