[Bug c/69088] type conversion to int

2016-01-02 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69088

--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA  ---
/*
thank you for your answer.
 A.Benaïssa
Comment:
  Please consider this case: 
*/

#include  
int main()
{ 
  float A = 0.F  ;
  _Bool  B1  = 1.F / A ;
  signed char    B2  = 1.F / A ;
  unsigned char  B3  = 1.F / A ;
  signed short   B4  = 1.F / A ;
  unsigned short B5  = 1.F / A ;
  signed int B6  = 1.F / A ;
  unsigned int   B7  = 1.F / A ;
  signed long    B8  = 1.F / A ;
  unsigned long  B9  = 1.F / A ;
  signed long long   B10 = 1.F / A ;
  unsigned long long B11 = 1.F / A ;

  double C = 0.  ;
  _Bool  D1  = 1. / C ;
  signed char    D2  = 1. / C ;
  unsigned char  D3  = 1. / C ;
  signed short   D4  = 1. / C ;
  unsigned short D5  = 1. / C ;
  signed int D6  = 1. / C ;
  unsigned int   D7  = 1. / C ;
  signed long    D8  = 1. / C ;
  unsigned long  D9  = 1. / C ;
  signed long long   D10 = 1. / C ;
  unsigned long long D11 = 1. / C ;

  long double E = 0.L  ;
  _Bool  F1  = 1.L / E ;
  signed char    F2  = 1.L / E ;
  unsigned char  F3  = 1.L / E ;
  signed short   F4  = 1.L / E ;
  unsigned short F5  = 1.L / E ;
  signed int F6  = 1.L / E ;
  unsigned int   F7  = 1.L / E ;
  signed long    F8  = 1.L / E ;
  unsigned long  F9  = 1.L / E ;
  signed long long   F10 = 1.L / E ;
  unsigned long long F11 = 1.L / E ;

  __float128 G = 0.Q  ;
  _Bool  H1  = 1.Q / G ;
  signed char    H2  = 1.Q / G ;
  unsigned char  H3  = 1.Q / G ;
  signed short   H4  = 1.Q / G ;
  unsigned short H5  = 1.Q / G ;
  signed int H6  = 1.Q / G ;
  unsigned int   H7  = 1.Q / G ;
  signed long    H8  = 1.Q / G ;
  unsigned long  H9  = 1.Q / G ;
  signed long long   H10 = 1.Q / G ;
  unsigned long long H11 = 1.Q / G ;

  printf("_Bool\n") ;
  printf("  B1 = %d \n" , B1) ;
  printf("  D1 = %d \n" , D1) ;
  printf("  F1 = %d \n" , F1) ;
  printf("  H1 = %d \n" , H1) ;
  printf("char signed\n") ;
  printf("  B2 = %d \n" , (int)B2) ;
  printf("  D2 = %d \n" , (int)D2) ;
  printf("  F2 = %d \n" , (int)F2) ;
  printf("  H2 = %d \n" , (int)H2) ;
  printf("char unsigned\n") ;
  printf("  B3 = %u \n" , (int unsigned)B3) ;
  printf("  D3 = %u \n" , (int unsigned)D3) ;
  printf("  F3 = %u \n" , (int unsigned)F3) ;
  printf("  H3 = %u \n" , (int unsigned)H3) ;
  printf("short signed\n") ;
  printf("  B4 = %hd \n" , B4) ;
  printf("  D4 = %hd \n" , D4) ;
  printf("  F4 = %hd \n" , F4) ;
  printf("  H4 = %hd \n" , H4) ;
  printf("short unsigned\n") ;
  printf("  B5 = %hu \n" , B5) ;
  printf("  D5 = %hu \n" , D5) ;
  printf("  F5 = %hu \n" , F5) ;
  printf("  H5 = %hu \n" , H5) ;
  printf("int signed\n") ;
  printf("  B6 = %d \n" , B6) ;
  printf("  D6 = %d \n" , D6) ;
  printf("  F6 = %d \n" , F6) ;
  printf("  H6 = %d \n" , H6) ;
  printf("int unsigned\n") ;
  printf("  B7 = %u \n" , B7) ;
  printf("  D7 = %u \n" , D7) ;
  printf("  F7 = %u \n" , F7) ;
  printf("  H7 = %u \n" , H7) ;
  printf("long\n") ;
  printf("  B8 = %d \n" , B8) ;
  printf("  D8 = %d \n" , D8) ;
  printf("  F8 = %d \n" , F8) ;
  printf("  H8 = %d \n" , H8) ;
  printf("long unsigned \n") ;
  printf("  B9 = %lu \n" , B9) ;
  printf("  D9 = %lu \n" , D9) ;
  printf("  F9 = %lu \n" , F9) ;
  printf("  H9 = %lu \n" , H9) ;
  printf("long long \n") ;
  printf("  B10 = %lld \n" , B10) ;
  printf("  D10 = %lld \n" , D10) ;
  printf("  F10 = %lld \n" , F10) ;
  printf("  H10 = %lld \n" , H10) ;
  printf("long long unsigned\n") ;
  printf("  B11 = %llu \n" , B11) ;
  printf("  D11 = %llu \n" , D11) ;
  printf("  F11 = %llu \n" , F11) ;
  printf("  H11 = %llu \n" , H11) ;

return 0;
}
/*
RESULTS::

_Bool
  B1 = 1 
  D1 = 1 
  F1 = 1 
  H1 = 1 
char signed
  B2 = 0 
  D2 = 0 
  F2 = 0 
  H2 = -1 
char unsigned
  B3 = 0 
  D3 = 0 
  F3 = 0 
  H3 = 0 
short signed
  B4 = -32768 
  D4 = -32768 
  F4 = -32768 
  H4 = -1 
short unsigned
  B5 = 0 
  D5 = 0 
  F5 = 0 
  H5 = 0 
int signed
  B6 = -2147483648 
  D6 = -2147483648 
  F6 = -2147483648 
  H6 = 2147483647 
int unsigned
  B7 = 0 
  D7 = 0 
  F7 = 0 
  H7 = 0 
long
  B8 = -2147483648 
  D8 = -2147483648 
  F8 = -2147483648 
  H8 = 2147483647 
long unsigned 
  B9 = 0 
  D9 = 0 
  F9 = 0 
  H9 = 0 
long long 
  B10 = -9223372036854775808 
  D10 = -9223372036854775808 
  F10 = -9223372036854775808 
  H10 = 9223372036854775807 
long long unsigned
  B11 = 0 
  D11 = 0 
  F11 = 0 
  H11 = 0 

it is clear that there is no real infinite value for any floating 
point representation but instead there is a symbolic representation
of infinites values by a finite sequence of bits.
This finite sequence of bits allows us to create a simple algebra 
on infinite's.
The type conversion from valid floating values to integer values is 
always possible in C.
This not means that for "infinites floating point values" , the result
of type

[Bug c/69086] crealf may be invalid value

2016-01-01 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69086

--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA  ---
thank you for your clear answer.comment: And I imagine that it is not possible
to define in C the complex value (inf,inf).                                    
                       A.Benaïssa


Le Mercredi 30 décembre 2015 21h14, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69086

Andrew Pinski  changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
        Resolution|---                        |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
A1_1 = 1.0e+0 / 0.0;
  A2_2 = 1.0e+0 / 0.0;
  A2.0_3 = A2_2;
  _4 = A2.0_3 * 0.0;
  _5 = _4 + A1_1;
  A3_6 = COMPLEX_EXPR <_5, A2.0_3>;
  _7 = (double) A1_1;
  printf ("%f\n", _7);
  _10 = REALPART_EXPR ;
  _11 = (double) _10;
  printf ("%f\n", _11);
  _13 = (double) A2_2;
  printf ("%f\n", _13);
  _15 = IMAGPART_EXPR ;
  _16 = (double) _15;
  printf ("%f\n", _16);
  _18 = 0;


The reason is more complex than what you think.  Sorry for the pun.  But since
there is no imagine type  A2*1.Fi is really A2*(0 + 1Fi)

So for the real part you get:
A1 + A2 * 0

A2 * 0 is nan as inf * 0 is a nan.

[Bug c/69086] New: crealf may be invalid value

2015-12-30 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69086

Bug ID: 69086
   Summary: crealf may be invalid value
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

# include 
# include 
# include 


int main( void)
{
 float A1  = 1.f/0.f ;
 float A2  = 1.f/0.f ;
 _Complex float A3 = A1 + A2*1.Fi ;

 printf("%f\n",A1);
 printf("%f\n",crealf(A3));
 printf("%f\n",A2);
 printf("%f\n",cimagf(A3));
 return 0 ;

}

/*
RESULTS::
 inf
 -nan
 inf
 inf
 gcc version 4.8.4 (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04)
 gcc -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -omain_crealf.exe main_crealf.c ;
*/

[Bug c/69088] New: type conversion to int

2015-12-30 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69088

Bug ID: 69088
   Summary: type conversion to int
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

#include  
int main()
{ 
  float B = 0.F ;
  int   A = 1.F / B ;

  __float128 B1 = 0.Q  ;
  intA1 = 1.Q / B1 ;

 printf("A  = %d\n", A ); 
 printf("A1 = %d\n", A1);

return 0;
}
/*
RESULTS::
A  = -2147483648
A1 =  2147483647

 gcc version 4.8.4 (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04)
 gcc -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -omain_conversion.exe main_conversion.c ;
*/

[Bug c/67930] segmentation fault

2015-10-13 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67930

--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA  ---

 Thank you for your reply.

 Comments::

 I am not convinced by your point of view.

 1- the compilation step does not deliver any message.

 2- I modify the string by address and this is permitted by C for any entity
not 
    private in its context.

 3- if the compiler gcc allows segmentation fault for basic operations on
pointers,
    I think that this is a severe bug and in consequence the compiler must be
    modified to remedie for such situations.

 This is my point of view.    
    A.Benaïssa 


 Le Lundi 12 octobre 2015 13h16, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67930

Marek Polacek  changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
                CC|                            |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
        Resolution|---                        |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek  ---
You're trying to modify a string literal.  That's no-no.

[Bug c/67930] New: segmentation fault

2015-10-12 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67930

Bug ID: 67930
   Summary: segmentation fault
   Product: gcc
   Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

# include 
# include 

void test ( char **A )
{
 *A[0] = 'a' ;
}

int main( void)
{
 char *b = "omega" ;

 test (  ) ;

 printf ( "b = %s \n" , b ) ;

 return 0 ;

}

/*
RESULTS::
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Exited: 35584

 gcc version 4.8.4 (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04)
 gcc -std=gnu99 -omain_pointer.exe main_pointer.c ;
*/

[Bug c/67840] #define function error

2015-10-05 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67840

--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA  ---
THank you for your reply. A.BENAÏSSA



 Le Dimanche 4 octobre 2015 16h26, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67840

Andrew Pinski  changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
        Resolution|---                        |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
For ?: both sides are converted into a single type which in case is __float128.
 There is _Generic or the other builtin which does not suffer this issue.

[Bug c/67840] New: #define function error

2015-10-04 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67840

Bug ID: 67840
   Summary: #define function error
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

/* #define function error */

#include 
#include 
#include 

#define tadjib(x) (sizeof( x )== sizeof( float )   ?cosf(x) \
  :sizeof( x )== sizeof( double )  ?cos(x)  \
  :sizeof( x ) == sizeof( long double )?cosl(x) \
  :cosq(x))

 int main(void)
{ 
   float   x = tadjib(1.F) ;
   double  y = tadjib(1. ) ;
   long double z = tadjib(1.L) ;

   printf("%E  \n" , x ) ;
   printf("%E  \n" , y ) ;
   printf("%LE \n" , z ) ;

   printf("\n");

   float   x1 = 1.F ;
   double  y1 = 1.  ;
   long double z1 = 1.L ;

   printf ( "%E  \n" , tadjib(x1) ) ;
   printf ( "%E  \n" , tadjib(y1) ) ;
   printf ( "%LE \n" , tadjib(z1) ) ;

   return 0 ;
}
/*
main_test_generic.c: In function ‘main’:
main_test_generic.c:29:4: warning: format ‘%E’ expects argument of type
‘double’, but argument 2 has type ‘__float128’ [-Wformat=]
printf ( "%E  \n" , tadjib(x1) ) ;
^
main_test_generic.c:30:4: warning: format ‘%E’ expects argument of type
‘double’, but argument 2 has type ‘__float128’ [-Wformat=]
printf ( "%E  \n" , tadjib(y1) ) ;
^
main_test_generic.c:31:4: warning: format ‘%LE’ expects argument of type ‘long
double’, but argument 2 has type ‘__float128’ [-Wformat=]
printf ( "%LE \n" , tadjib(z1) ) ;
^

Done.*/

/* Results:: 
   main_test_generic.exe

   5.403023E-01  
   5.403023E-01  
   5.403023E-01 

   -5.610234E-259  
   5.403023E-01  
   5.403023E-01 

   gcc version 4.8.4 (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04)
   gcc -std=gnu99 -omain_test_generic.exe main_test_generic.c -lm  -lquadmath ;
*/

[Bug c/67668] erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

2015-09-22 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67668

--- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA  ---
  Thank you for your quick and clear reply .
  Note:
   I think that using the same symbol operator for doing two different things
   can be a potential source of blind errors.
   I confirm that this is only a personnal point of view.
  A.Benaïssa



 Le Lundi 21 septembre 2015 15h41, manu at gcc dot gnu.org
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67668

Manuel López-Ibáñez  changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
                CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
        Resolution|---                        |INVALID

--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez  ---
Marc is right:

The operator ‘~’ performs complex conjugation when used on a value with a
complex type. This is a GNU extension; for values of floating type, you should
use the ISO C99 functions conjf, conj and conjl, declared in  and
also provided as built-in functions by GCC. 

test.c:3:3: warning: ISO C does not support ‘~’ for complex conjugation
[-Wpedantic]
  ~( 1. + 0.i ) ; 
  ^

[Bug c/67667] erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

2015-09-22 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67667

--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA  ---
  Thank you for your quick and clear reply .
  Note:
   I think that using the same symbol operato as GNU extension for doing two
different things
   can be a potential source of blind errors .
   I confirm that this is only a personnal point of view.
  A.Benaïssa



 Le Lundi 21 septembre 2015 13h29, redi at gcc dot gnu.org
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67667

Jonathan Wakely  changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
        Resolution|---                        |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 67668 ***

[Bug c/67667] New: erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

2015-09-21 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67667

Bug ID: 67667
   Summary: erroneous type argument for unary operator one's
complement
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

[Bug c/67668] New: erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

2015-09-21 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67668

Bug ID: 67668
   Summary: erroneous type argument for unary operator one's
complement
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

int main(void)
{ 
  ~( 1. + 0.i ) ; 
  ~(1.)   ; 
  return 0  ;
}

/* Results:: 
   main_cmp1_err.c:4:3: attention : statement with no effect [-Wunused-value]
  ~( 1. + 0.i ) ; 
  ^
   main_cmp1_err.c:5:3: erreur: type d'argument erroné pour un complément de
bit
  ~(1.)   ; 
  ^
   Comment:: ( 1. + 0.i ) must be an erroneous type argument for ~ . 

   Microsoft Windows XP Profesional version2002 Service Pack 3.
   Gcc 4.8.0 win32 mingw32  
*/

[Bug c/67570] comparison rules fails

2015-09-17 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67570

--- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA  ---
 Thank you very much for your reply.
Please do not take care of the first set of values for 
MIN_NORMALIZED and in place you can test those new values.

 MIN_NORMALIZED
   1.755494 E-038  for float  
   2.225074 E-308  for double   
   3.362103 E-4932 for __float128 

All remainded values stays unchanged.   

Addendum to precedent note:
the proposal is valid for any floating point operation between two 
float or more with final result lower than (float)MIN_DENORMALIZED,
and I will consult the C99/C11 standards and bug 323.

   I apologize by advance.
    A.Benaïssa




 Le Mercredi 16 septembre 2015 16h45, joseph at codesourcery dot com
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67570

--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  ---
I advise looking at __FLT_MAX__, __FLT_MIN__, __FLT_DENORM_MIN__ etc. as 
predefined by the compiler to see the appropriate values of various 
constants.

> Multiplying (float)MIN_NORMALIZED * (float)MIN_NORMALIZED and 
> viewing this value with printf("%E..) we obtains 
> result = 3.109021E-076 wuich is a valid double normalized value.

That's a matter of excess range and precision.  See the C99/C11 standards 
and bug 323.

[Bug c/67570] comparison rules fails

2015-09-16 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67570

--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA  ---

Thank you for your reply.
  A.BENAÏSSA

Post scriptum:
Please can you confirm if you have time that the following
positive floating point values are correct.

--
 MIN_DENORMALIZED
   1.401298 E-0045 for float
   4.940656 E-0324 for double
   3.645200 E-4951 for long double
   6.475175 E-4966 for __float128
--
 HUGE_DENORMALIZED
   1.175494 E-0038 for float
   2.225074 E-0308 for double   
   6.724206 E-4932 for long double 
   3.362103 E-4932 for __float128 
--
 MIN_NORMALIZED
   1.763242 E-0038 for float  
   3.337611 E-0308 for double   
   3.362103 E-4932 for long double 
   5.043155 E-4932 for __float128 
--
 HUGE_NORMALIZED
   3.402823 E+0038 for float
   1.797693 E+0308 for double   
   1.189731 E+4932 for long double 
   1.189731 E+4932 for __float128 
--

Note:

Multiplying (float)MIN_NORMALIZED * (float)MIN_NORMALIZED and 
viewing this value with printf("%E..) we obtains 
result = 3.109021E-076 wuich is a valid double normalized value.

The float binary representation of result is:
0  000 and this is correct 
because result is lower than (float)MIN_DENORMALIZED.

For coherency because:

1-  (float) * (float) = (float)
2-  sizeof( (float)MIN_NORMALIZED * (float)MIN_NORMALIZED) ) = 4

the result of 
printf("%E\n" , (float)MIN_NORMALIZED * (float)MIN_NORMALIZED) ); 
I suppose must be 0.E0F. 


 Le Lundi 14 septembre 2015 18h52, joseph at codesourcery dot com
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67570

--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  ---
If I understand what you are doing correctly, this is an unnormal 
representation (exponent not zero or maximal, explicit MSB of mantissa 
zero).  Such representations, which cannot be produced by floating-point 
operations, are considered trap representations in C terms (undefined 
behavior if used, no consistency expected or required).  Valid 
representations must have that MSB set for nonzero exponents and clear for 
zero exponents.

[Bug c/67569] wrong type in error message

2015-09-14 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67569

--- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA  ---
Thank you for your replty. A.Benaïssa



 Le Lundi 14 septembre 2015 11h22, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67569

Marek Polacek  changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
                CC|                            |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
        Resolution|---                        |WORKSFORME

--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek  ---
Can't reproduce:

h1.c: In function ‘main’:
h1.c:5:6: error: invalid operands to binary - (have ‘int *’ and ‘float’)

Also, gcc 4.8 is not supported anymore.

[Bug c/67569] wrong type in error message

2015-09-14 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67569

--- Comment #5 from BENAÏSSA  ---
Thank you.          A.Benaïssa



 Le Lundi 14 septembre 2015 13h27, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67569

Andrew Pinski  changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
        Resolution|WORKSFORME                  |---

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Actually this might be reproducible with -m32 on x86_64. The issue is related
to the fix for exessive precision.

[Bug c/67569] New: erroneous compiler error message

2015-09-14 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67569

Bug ID: 67569
   Summary: erroneous compiler error message
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

/* Erroneous compiler error message */

 int main(void)
{
   int   *A = (int *)533 ;
   float  F = 1.F;
   A - F ;   
   return 0 ;
}

/*
   Results:
   In function 'main':
   main_comp_err_msg.c:6:5: 
   erreur: invalid operands to binary - (have 'int *' and 'long double')
   A-F;
 ^
   Note:
   The variable F is not of type long double.

   Microsoft Windows XP Profesional version2002 Service Pack 3.
   Gcc 4.8.0 win32 mingw32 -std=C99 

*/

[Bug c/67570] New: comparison rules fails

2015-09-14 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67570

Bug ID: 67570
   Summary: comparison rules fails
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

#include 

 int main(void)
{ 
   int pos;
   int pos1   ;
   int pos2   ;
   long double A= 0.L ;

   union { 
   long double X ; 
   char unsigned mask[sizeof(A)] ; 
 } alfa ;

   alfa.X = A;
   pos= 32   ;
   pos1   = 11 - ( pos - 1 ) / 8 ;
   pos2   = 8;

   alfa.mask[pos1] =((char unsigned )1 << (sizeof(char unsigned) * 8 - pos2)) ^
alfa.mask[pos1] ;

   printf ( "   [alfa.X]= %LE \n" , alfa.X) ; 
   printf ( "   [alfa.X == 0.L] = %i  \n" , alfa.X == 0.L ) ; 
   printf ( "   [alfa.X != 0.L] = %i  \n" , alfa.X != 0.L ) ; 
   printf ( "   [alfa.X <= 0.L] = %i  \n" , alfa.X <= 0.L ) ;   
   printf ( "   [alfa.X >= 0.L] = %i  \n" , alfa.X >= 0.L ) ;   
   printf ( "   [alfa.X <  0.L] = %i  \n" , alfa.X <  0.L ) ;   
   printf ( "   [alfa.X >  0.L] = %i  \n" , alfa.X >  0.L ) ;   

   return 0 ;

}

/*

   Results:
   [alfa.X]= 0.00E+000  
   [alfa.X == 0.L] = 0  
   [alfa.X != 0.L] = 1  
   [alfa.X <= 0.L] = 0  
   [alfa.X >= 0.L] = 0  
   [alfa.X <  0.L] = 0  
   [alfa.X >  0.L] = 0 

   Note:
   Binary representation IEEE 754 of alfa.X is:
    0 001

   It seems that comparison rules fails in this case.

   Microsoft Windows XP Profesional version2002 Service Pack 3.
   Gcc 4.8.0 win32 mingw32 -std=C99 

*/

[Bug c/67547] may be an error in printf(%a..) for nexttowardf(0.f,1.f)

2015-09-12 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67547

--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA  ---
Thank you very much for your reply.
A.Benaïssa



 Le Vendredi 11 septembre 2015 13h25, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67547

Andrew Pinski  changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
        Resolution|---                        |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Report this to mingw since that is where printf comes from (though it might
come directly from Microsoft's libc).

Also by the way nexttowardf is C99 and not C89 so I am getting warnings with
glibc and C89:
t1.c: In function 'main':
t1.c:6:20: warning: implicit declaration of function 'nexttowardf'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
  printf("  %E\n", nexttowardf ( 0.F , 1.F ) ) ;
                    ^
t1.c:6:10: warning: format '%E' expects argument of type 'double', but argument
2 has type 'int' [-Wformat=]
  printf("  %E\n", nexttowardf ( 0.F , 1.F ) ) ;
          ^
t1.c:7:10: warning: format '%A' expects argument of type 'double', but argument
2 has type 'int' [-Wformat=]
  printf("  %A\n", nexttowardf ( 0.F , 1.F ) ) ;
          ^
t1.c:8:20: warning: implicit declaration of function 'nexttoward'
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
  printf("  %A\n", nexttoward  ( 0.  , 1.  ) ) ;
                    ^
t1.c:8:10: warning: format '%A' expects argument of type 'double', but argument
2 has type 'int' [-Wformat=]
  printf("  %A\n", nexttoward  ( 0.  , 1.  ) ) ;

[Bug c/67547] New: may be an error in printf(%a..) for nexttowardf(0.f,1.f)

2015-09-11 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67547

Bug ID: 67547
   Summary: may be an error in printf(%a..) for
nexttowardf(0.f,1.f)
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

include 
 include 

 int main(void)
{ 
  printf("  %E\n", nexttowardf ( 0.F , 1.F ) ) ;
  printf("  %A\n", nexttowardf ( 0.F , 1.F ) ) ;
  printf("  %A\n", nexttoward  ( 0.  , 1.  ) ) ;
  return 0 ;
}
/* Results 
   1.401298E-045
   0X0P-149
   0X1P-1023

   Comment:: may be an error in printf("%A...) for this value ?

   Microsoft Windows XP Profesional version2002 Service Pack 3.
   Gcc 4.8.0 win32 mingw32 
   std =-C99 
*/

[Bug c/67095] errno for logf(-1.f)

2015-09-11 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67095

--- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA  ---
Thank you for your reply.   A.Benaïssa.



 Le Dimanche 2 août 2015 13h46, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
 a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67095

Andrew Pinski  changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |RESOLVED
        Resolution|---                        |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Not a gcc bug as gcc does not provide logf. Please report it to mingw if you
want the optional setting of errno to happen (note this is optional for both c
and posix).

[Bug c/67095] New: errno for logf(-1.f)

2015-08-02 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67095

Bug ID: 67095
   Summary: errno for logf(-1.f)
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

#include stdlib.h
 #include stdio.h
 #include errno.h
 #include math.h

 int main(void)
{

   float A = -1.f ;

   float B = logf(A);
   printf ( B = %f \n , B) ;
   printf ( errno = %d \n , errno) ;

   float C = sqrtf(A);
   printf ( C = %f \n , C) ;
   printf ( errno = %d \n , errno) ;

return 0;

}

/* Compilation and linkage */

/*  -- Capture Output --*/
/*  */
/*   E:\PAPA\test_gcc\C99\COMPIL_C\compil_c99.bat*/
/*  main_errno_gcc4.8.0 */
/*  E:\PAPA\test_gcc\FONCTIONS\FORBA\MAIN_TEST\main_errno_gcc4.8.0.c*/ 
/*  */
/*  Utilisation des specs internes. */
/*  */
/*  COLLECT_GCC=d:\gfortran\bin\gcc.exe */
/*  */
/*  COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=*/
/*  d:/gfortran/bin/../libexec/gcc/mingw32/4.8.0/lto-wrapper.exe*/
/*  */
/*  Target: mingw32 */
/*  */
/*  Configuré avec: */
/*  ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/mingw --enable-languages=c ,   */
/*   fortran,lto --with-gmp=/home/brad/gfortran/dependencies*/
/*   --disable-werror --enable-threads --enable-nls */
/*   --build=i586-pc-mingw32 --enable-libgomp --enable-shared   */
/*   --disable-win32-registry --with-dwarf2 */
/*   --disable-sjlj-exceptions  */
/*   --enable-lto --build=mingw32   */
/*   --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs */
/*  */
/*  Modèle de thread: win32 */
/*  */
/*  gcc version 4.8.0 20130302 (experimental)   */
/*  [trunk revision 196403] */
/*   (GCC)  */
/*  */
/*  COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-std=c99' '-Warray-bounds' '-Wall'*/
/*   '-Wextra' '-Waddress' '-Wbad-function-cast' '-Wformat=1'   */
/*   '-Wformat-contains-nul' '-Wformat-extra-args'  */
/*   '-Wformat-nonliteral'  */
/*   '-Wformat-security' '-Wformat-zero-length' */
/*   '-Wsuggest-attribute=format' '-Woverlength-strings'*/
/*   '-malign-stringops'*/
/*   '-o' 'E:\PAPA\test_gcc\EXE\main_errno_gcc4.8.0_C99.exe'*/
/*   '-mtune=i386' '-march=i386'*/
/*   d:/gfortran/bin/../libexec/gcc/mingw32/4.8.0/cc1.exe   */
/*   -quiet -v -iprefix d:\gfortran\bin\../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.8.0/   */
/*   E:\PAPA\test_gcc\FONCTIONS\FORBA\MAIN_TEST\*/
/*   main_errno_gcc4.8.0.c  */
/*   -quiet -dumpbase main_errno_gcc4.8.0.c -malign-stringops   */
/*   -mtune=i386 -march=i386 -auxbase main_errno_gcc4.8.0   */
/*   -Warray-bounds -Wall -Wextra -Waddress -Wbad-function-cast */
/*   -Wformat=1 -Wformat-contains-nul -Wformat-extra-args   */
/*   -Wformat-nonliteral -Wformat-security  */
/*   -Wformat-zero-length -Wsuggest-attribute=format*/
/*   -Woverlength-strings -std=c99 -version */
/*   -o C:\DOCUME~1\Jupiter\LOCALS~1\Temp\ccHKpeRr.s*/
/*  */
/*  GNU C (GCC) version 4.8.0 20130302 (experimental)   */
/*  [trunk revision 196403] (mingw32)   */
/*  */
/*  compiled by GNU C version 4.8.0 20130302 (experimental)*/
/*  [trunk revision 196403], GMP version 5.0.2, MPFR version 3.1.0,*/ 
/*  MPC version 0.9

[Bug c/66613] error in evaluationg cexp

2015-07-02 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613

--- Comment #5 from BENAÏSSA ka_bena at yahoo dot fr ---
Thank you for your mail.I do not know where is the error but after execution I
do not have the good result. anyway!
Compile Flags:

  -std=c99
-Warray-bounds
 -Wall
 -Wextra 

-Waddress
 -Wbad-function-cast
 -Wformat
 -Wformat-contains-nul
 -Wformat-extra-args
-Wformat-nonliteral
-Wformat-security
 -Wformat-zero-length
-Wmissing-format-attribute
 -Woverlength-strings
 -foptional-diags
-Woverlength-strings
 -malign-stringops

-malign-stringops

-lm

-llquadmath

I work with windowsXP on Compaq 6720S.

I use gcc provided by gfortran.

I hope that those informations can be useful.
 thank you A.BENAISSA 



 Le Dimanche 21 juin 2015 12h37, michael.l...@uni-ulm.de
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613

Michael Lehn michael.l...@uni-ulm.de changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

                CC|                            |michael.l...@uni-ulm.de

--- Comment #1 from Michael Lehn michael.l...@uni-ulm.de ---
 // Terminated with exit code 0.

So were is the error?

[Bug c/66613] error in evaluationg cexp

2015-07-02 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613

--- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA ka_bena at yahoo dot fr ---
Thank you for your mail.
Compile Flags:  -std=c99
-Warray-bounds
 -Wall
 -Wextra  
-Waddress
 -Wbad-function-cast
 -Wformat
 -Wformat-contains-nul
 -Wformat-extra-args
-Wformat-nonliteral
-Wformat-security
 -Wformat-zero-length
-Wmissing-format-attribute
 -Woverlength-strings
 -foptional-diags
-Woverlength-strings
 -malign-stringops-malign-stringops-lm-llquadmath
I work with windowsXP on Compaq 6720S.
I use gcc provided by gfortran.I hope that those informations can be useful.   
   Thank you A.BENAISSA.



 Le Lundi 22 juin 2015 11h50, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org a écrit :


 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613

Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

          What    |Removed                    |Added

            Status|UNCONFIRMED                |WAITING
  Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-06-22
    Ever confirmed|0                          |1

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The issue could also be in gmp/mpfr/mpc or in the C library.

How did you compile (with what flags) anyway?

[Bug c/66613] New: error in evaluationg cexp

2015-06-20 Thread ka_bena at yahoo dot fr 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613

Bug ID: 66613
   Summary: error in evaluationg cexp
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ka_bena at yahoo dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

#include stdio.h 
#include complex.h
#include quadmath.h

int main(void)
{
   printf( \n); 
  
printf(/**/\n);
 
   printf( \n); 

   printf( SECTION 1 \n); 
   printf( \n); 
   printf(  _Complex float zF  = 1.F + 2.Fi ;\n);   
   _Complex float zF = 1.F + 2.Fi ;
   printf(  crealf(cexpf(zF))  = %f \n , crealf(cexpf(zF))) ;
   printf(  cimagf(cexpf(zF))  = %f \n , cimagf(cexpf(zF))) ;
   printf( \n); 

   printf(  _Complex double zD = 1.D + 2.Di ;\n);   
   _Complex double zD = 1.D + 2.Di ;
   printf(  creal(cexp(zD))= %E \n , creal(cexp(zD))) ;
   printf(  cimag(cexp(zD))= %E \n , cimag(cexp(zD))) ;
   printf(  creal(cexp(1.D + 2.Di))= %f \n , creal(cexp(1.D + 2.Di))) ;
   printf(  cimag(cexp(1.D + 2.Di))= %f \n , cimag(cexp(1.D + 2.Di))) ;
   printf( \n); 

   printf(  _Complex long double zL= 1.L + 2.Li\n);   
_Complex long double zL = 1.L + 2.Li ;
   printf(  creall(cexpl(zL))  = %lE \n , creall(cexpl(zL))) ;
   printf(  cimagl(cexpl(zL))  = %lE \n , cimagl(cexpl(zL))) ;
   printf(  creall(cexpl(1.L + 2.Li))  = %lf \n , creall(cexpl(1.L + 2.Li)))
;
   printf(  cimagl(cexpl(1.L + 2.Li))  = %lf \n , cimagl(cexpl(1.L + 2.Li)))
;
   printf( \n);

   printf(  __complex128 zQ= 1.Q + 2.Qi\n);
__complex128 zQ = 1.Q + 2.Qi ;
   printf(  crealq(cexpq(zQ))  = %lf \n , (long
double)crealq(cexpq(zQ))) ;
   printf(  cimagq(cexpq(zQ))  = %lf \n , (long
double)cimagq(cexpq(zQ))) ;

   printf( \n); 
  
printf(/**/\n);
 
   printf( \n); 


   printf( SECTION 2 \n); 

   printf( \n);   
   float alfa = 1.f / 3.f ;
   printf( alfa = %-100.80f \n , alfa) ; 
   printf( sizeof(alfa))= %u\n , sizeof(alfa)) ; 
   printf( 1.f/3.f  = %-100.80f \n , 1.f/3.f) ; 
   printf( sizeof(1.f/3.f)) = %u\n , sizeof(1.f/3.f)) ; 

   printf( \n); 
  
printf(/**/\n);
 
   printf( \n); 

  return 0;
}

//-- Capture Output --
// E:\PAPA\test_gcc\C99\RUN_C\run_C99.bat main_error_gcc481 
//
//D:\gfortran\includeE:\PAPA\test_gcc\exe\main_error_gcc481_C99.exe
//
///**/
//
//SECTION 1 
//
// _Complex float zF  = 1.F + 2.Fi ;
// crealf(cexpf(zF))  = -1.131204 
// cimagf(cexpf(zF))  = 2.471727 
//
// _Complex double zD = 1.D + 2.Di ;
// creal(cexp(zD))= -3.730751E-144 
// cimag(cexp(zD))= 6.752940E+268 
// creal(cexp(1.D + 2.Di))= -1.131204 
// cimag(cexp(1.D + 2.Di))= 2.471727 
//
// _Complex long double zL= 1.L + 2.Li
// creall(cexpl(zL))  = -0.00E+000 
// cimagl(cexpl(zL))  = 1.291636E+1644 
// creall(cexpl(1.L + 2.Li))  = -1.131204 
// cimagl(cexpl(1.L + 2.Li))  = 2.471727 
//
// __complex128 zQ= 1.Q + 2.Qi
// crealq(cexpq(zQ))  = -1.131204 
// cimagq(cexpq(zQ))  = 2.471727 
//
///**/
//
//SECTION 2 
//
// alfa =
0.333432674407958984375000
 
// sizeof(alfa))= 4
// 1.f/3.f  =
0.1482961625624739099293947219848632812500
 
// sizeof(1.f/3.f)) = 4
//
///**/
//
//
// Terminated with exit code 0.