This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix up long double fphex

From: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:48:51 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix up long double fphex
References: <20120304204257.GA4667@redhat.com><20120306212645.GU6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>

On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 10:26:45PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I'm pretty sure this test fails on targets where long double isn't ldbl-96, but
> ldbl-128, ldbl-128ibm or dbl-64, because for those
> a will be L"0x1.88p+4" and A L"0X1.88P+4".  Only ldbl-96 %La/%LA printing ever
> prints before hexadecimal dot numbers from 2 to f/F.

Ah, I see, sorry.
Would something like this be workable?

#if LDBL_MANT_DIG == 64
  expect L"0xc.4p+1"
#else
  expect L"0x1.88p+4"
#endif
?

I've checked LDBL_MANT_DIG on PPC64 and there it is 106 (-mlong-double-128)
or 53 (-mlong-double-64).

And I guess we should run the test only when !NO_LONG_DOUBLE...

Thanks a lot for catching this.

	Marek

References:
- [PATCH] Fix up long double fphex
  - From: Marek Polacek
- Re: [PATCH] Fix up long double fphex
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]