----Original Message----
From: Dave Korn
Sent: 26 June 2005 17:09
----Original Message----
From: Dave Korn
Sent: 26 June 2005 16:56
----Original Message----
From: Dave Korn
Sent: 26 June 2005 16:25
Um. If I'm brutally honest I suppose I should point out that the
testing doesn't cover very large values. I'll do that offline after I
send this post. In the meantime, assume this is good unless I report
back it went wrong!
:) It went right!
For reference, here's the improved testcase I used with big nums, and it
also uses long ints instead of recycling the float/double vars to receive
the function results. Still no discrepancies.
Oh, and as CV has pointed out, one of these might be needed:
2005-06-26 Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com>
* libm/common/s_lrint.c (lrint): Fix signed-vs-unsigned comparison
and miscalculation caused by fp representation of zero.
* libm/common/sf_lrint.c (lrintf): Likewise.
cheers,
DaveK