On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 20:34 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
SH (and I'm sure others) has some multilibs (like -m2a-single-only)
where sizeof(double) is 4, which breaks some testcases. Here's a
patch which adds checks for small doubles (and small long doubles),
and adjusts some of the tests which
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 20:34 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
SH (and I'm sure others) has some multilibs (like -m2a-single-only)
where sizeof(double) is 4, which breaks some testcases. Here's a
patch which adds checks for small doubles (and small long doubles),
and adjusts some of the tests
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, DJ Delorie wrote:
Index: gcc.dg/torture/fp-int-convert-long-double.c
===
--- gcc.dg/torture/fp-int-convert-long-double.c (revision 146652)
+++ gcc.dg/torture/fp-int-convert-long-double.c (working
The fp-int-convert-long-double test does this:
static volatile signed long long ivin, ivout;
static volatile long double fv1, fv2;
ivin = ((signed long long) (((unsigned long long) ~(unsigned long long) 0)
1));
fv1 = ((signed long long) (((unsigned long long) ~(unsigned long long) 0)
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, DJ Delorie wrote:
The fp-int-convert-long-double test does this:
static volatile signed long long ivin, ivout;
static volatile long double fv1, fv2;
ivin = ((signed long long) (((unsigned long long) ~(unsigned long long) 0)
1));
fv1 = ((signed long long)
But it doesn't need to store it *exactly*; it only tests that the
conversion reverses if PREC_OK (argument to TEST_I_F_VAL) is true, and
TEST_I_F sets PREC_OK to what should be an appropriate value (based on the
types involved, LDBL_MANT_DIG, etc.) in each case. The other tests are
The fp-int-convert tests are meant to be correct independent of the sizes
involved, so this change is inappropriate and may point to a bug
elsewhere.
It did, I fixed it. Thanks for the insight.
SH (and I'm sure others) has some multilibs (like -m2a-single-only)
where sizeof(double) is 4, which breaks some testcases. Here's a
patch which adds checks for small doubles (and small long doubles),
and adjusts some of the tests which depend on large doubles.
Comments? Ok to apply?
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, DJ Delorie wrote:
+# Return 1 if the target supports double larger than float,
+# 0 otherwise.
+
+proc check_effective_target_large_double { } {
+return [check_no_compiler_messages large_double object {
+ int dummy[sizeof(double) sizeof(float) ? 1 : -1];
+
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, DJ Delorie wrote:
+# Return 1 if the target supports double larger than float,
+# 0 otherwise.
+
+proc check_effective_target_large_double { } {
+return [check_no_compiler_messages large_double object {
+ int dummy[sizeof(double) sizeof(float) ? 1 : -1];
10 matches
Mail list logo
