This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/8] Begin refactor of libm-test.inc
- From: "Paul E. Murphy" <murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 16:55:47 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Begin refactor of libm-test.inc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <cover dot 1463599718 dot git dot murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <d07dfc0973a9a1288b424abfb19633ab0048f1c9 dot 1463599718 dot git dot murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 20 dot 1605182141070 dot 7137 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 05/18/2016 04:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2016, Paul E. Murphy wrote:
>> [TEST_COND_gt_binary64]: Likewise.
> I don't like this TEST_COND_gt_binary64.
> If the condition combines TEST_LDOUBLE with something about mantissa bits
> or exponents for long double, only the thing about mantissa bits or
> exponents is actually needed. If it's TEST_LDOUBLE on its own (or
> combined with conditions on integer types rather than on long double), as
> in e.g. tests of ceil, then testing for >= 64 mantissa bits is sufficient
> (the tests may actually only require some number between 53 and 64, but
> testing for >= 64 seems reasonable). That is, TEST_LDOUBLE on its own can
> be treated as defined TEST_LDOUBLE && LDBL_MANT_DIG >= 64.
Admittedly, I scratched my head here try to find a conservative method to
replace the TEST_LDOUBLE usage. If it is only used as a bandaid for
testing ldbl formats which are more expressive than dbl, can't it just
go away without issue? It isn't used in isolation.