From owner-freebsd-current Thu Oct 31 22:15: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0409C37B401 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:15:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CDD43E75 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:14:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA24836; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:14:51 +1100 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:26:10 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: rittle@labs.mot.com Cc: imp@bsdimp.com, , Subject: Re: Lack of real long double support In-Reply-To: <200210312147.g9VLlHLJ070952@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> Message-ID: <20021101172000.F14144-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Loren James Rittle wrote: > In article <20021031202343.W8632-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, > Bruce Evans writes: > > When I run your program against gcc mainline (for 3.3 release) with > the patch I have staged from RTH to correctly match our FP hardware > default setup, I see: > > S rittle@latour; /usr/local/beta-gcc/bin/gcc t.c > S rittle@latour; a.out > LDBL_EPSILON failed test 2 with prec 3 > S rittle@latour; /usr/local/beta-gcc/bin/gcc -O t.c > S rittle@latour; a.out > LDBL_EPSILON failed test 2 with prec 3 > DBL_EPSILON failed test 2 with prec 3 > S rittle@latour; /usr/local/beta-gcc/bin/gcc -O2 t.c > S rittle@latour; a.out > LDBL_EPSILON failed test 2 with prec 3 > DBL_EPSILON failed test 2 with prec 3 > S rittle@latour; /usr/local/beta-gcc/bin/gcc -O3 t.c > S rittle@latour; a.out > LDBL_EPSILON failed test 2 with prec 3 > DBL_EPSILON failed test 2 with prec 3 > > I.e. the only time it "fails" is when the user made a call to change > the default precision. Is that gcc 3.3 behavior acceptable (at least > until gcc can be further refined to attempt to handle user override of > the FP control word)? Yes, this is the correct behaviour IMO. I don't see how any user override of the control word (except possibly of the rounding mode) can be expected to work right outside of an FENV_ACCESS section. Constants like DBL_EPSILON presumably don't apply in such sections. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message