[Bug tree-optimization/85699] [9 regression] gcc.dg/nextafter-2.c fail

2018-08-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 
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

2018-05-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 
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=gcc=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

2018-05-09 Thread andrey.y.guskov at intel dot com 
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

2018-05-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 
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=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

2018-05-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 
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

2018-05-09 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 
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

2018-05-08 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 
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?