This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Is sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/e_remainder.c broken?
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 12:31:01AM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:00:02 -0800
> > From: "H . J . Lu" <email@example.com>
> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:03:04PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > > Stephen L Moshier <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > Yes, it is broken on i386.
> > >
> > > The "fix" is simple: don't use the code on x86. The code was written
> > > using accurate rounding based on the precision and not the extra-long
> > > internal format. Uglifying and slowing down of generally used code
> > > for a platform which isn't even using the code is not acceptable.
> > Ok, the IBM code doesn't work on x86. Do we have "make check" results
> > on none x86 platforms?
> Happily, I do. On powerpc, all the tests pass except for those
> related to 'conj' in test-ifloat. I need to look at that, but it's
> likely a compiler bug in the 2.95.2 compiler I'm using.
Please try this on your Linux/PPC with the current glibc. I believe
sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/e_remainder.c is broken. But I don't know what
is the best way to fix it and verify the whole IBM math library is ok.
I am considering to use the old IEEE math library for MIPS.
int main( int argc,char * argv[ ] )
unsigned long long l;
} op1, op2;
op1.l = 0x7fefffffffffffff;
op2.l = 0x0000000000000001;
printf("%llx %llx\n", op1.l, op2.l);
res = remainder(op1.d, op2.d);