[Bug tree-optimization/85699] [9 regression] gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85699 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed.
[Bug tree-optimization/85699] [9 regression] gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85699 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu May 10 07:38:24 2018 New Revision: 260107 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260107&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/85699 * gcc.dg/nextafter-1.c (NO_LONG_DOUBLE): Define if not defined. Use !NO_LONG_DOUBLE instead of __LDBL_MANT_DIG__ != 106. * gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c: Include stdlib.h. For glibc < 2.24 define NO_LONG_DOUBLE to 1 before including nextafter-1.c. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/nextafter-1.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c
[Bug tree-optimization/85699] [9 regression] gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85699 --- Comment #4 from Andrey Guskov --- Jakub, here is the requested output: bug at 136 aa == -3.36210314311209350626267781732175260e-4932L / 4.0L + 3.64519953188247460252840593361941982e-4951L bug at 145 aa == -3.36210314311209350626267781732175260e-4932L / 4.0L + 3.64519953188247460252840593361941982e-4951L
[Bug tree-optimization/85699] [9 regression] gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85699 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 44097 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44097&action=edit gcc9-pr85699.patch Untested workaround (if we want to workaround libc bugs in the testsuite).
[Bug tree-optimization/85699] [9 regression] gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85699 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- If you are using glibc < 2.24, then maybe this is: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20205
[Bug tree-optimization/85699] [9 regression] gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85699 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |9.0 Target Milestone|--- |9.0
[Bug tree-optimization/85699] [9 regression] gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85699 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8 regression] |[9 regression] |gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail |gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- First of all, this test isn't present on 8 branch at all, only trunk. And, this exact testcase uses -fno-builtin and thus tests the library, so if it fails, likely your libc is buggy. Which exact subtest fails for you? E.g. replace #define CHECK(x) if (!(x)) __builtin_abort () with #define CHECK(x) if (!(x)) __builtin_printf ("bug at %d %s\n", __LINE__, #x); and see what it prints?