[Bug target/106165] incorrect result when using inlined asm implementation of floor() on i686

2022-10-14 Thread vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106165 Vincent Lefèvre changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---

[Bug target/106165] incorrect result when using inlined asm implementation of floor() on i686

2022-07-05 Thread xeioexception at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106165 --- Comment #5 from xeioex --- My question is more practical. For example while `-fexcess-precision=standard` fixes the problem in GCC. But, I am left with the same problem regarding other compilers. At least am looking for a way to detect

[Bug target/106165] incorrect result when using inlined asm implementation of floor() on i686

2022-07-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106165 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to xeioex from comment #3) > Is there a portable (across platforms and compilers) to ensure that double > values are always 64 bits? It is still 64bit storage on i686, just uses the excessive

[Bug target/106165] incorrect result when using inlined asm implementation of floor() on i686

2022-07-05 Thread xeioexception at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106165 --- Comment #3 from xeioex --- Is there a portable (across platforms and compilers) to ensure that double values are always 64 bits?

[Bug target/106165] incorrect result when using inlined asm implementation of floor() on i686

2022-07-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106165 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/106165] incorrect result when using inlined asm implementation of floor() on i686

2022-07-01 Thread xeioexception at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106165 --- Comment #1 from xeioex --- TO fix the last confirmations 1) gcc -O2 minified_to_string_radix.i -o 507 -lm && ./507 1e+23.toString(36) = ga894a06ac8 ERROR expected "ga894a06abs" 2) gcc -O1 minified_to_string_radix.i -o 507 -lm &&