IBM long double fixes

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 06/25/2013 08:28 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 01:31:36PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Alan Modra wrote:
>>
>>> 	* sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128ibm/e_rem_pio2l.c: Comment fix.
>>
>> This comment fix can go in straight away as obvious.
>>
>> Fixes for bugs that were user-visible in past releases should have an 
>> associated bug in Bugzilla with [BZ #N] in the ChangeLog entry and the bug 
>> number listed in NEWS as fixed (if the bug was fully fixed), and testcases 
>> for the testsuite may be a good idea as well (though we're less strict 
>> about that for system-specific bugs).  I know of at least bugs 5268 and 
>> 14551 as known IBM long double bugs in glibc, although the former doesn't 
>> give a self-contained testcase so it's not clear what the bug is supposed 
>> to be there.  I don't know if those bugs correspond to some of what you're 
>> fixing or what other bugs might need to be filed to cover the fixes.
> 
> There is some chance that 5268 is fixed by
> http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2013-06/msg00919.html
> but it doesn't fix 14551.  I didn't develop the denormal fixes in
> response to any particular bugzilla, but rather from simply browsing
> the source when making changes for little-endian support, and noticing
> nastiness.  In fact, these bug fixes are a distraction from my main
> aim, which is little-endian support.
> 
> Do you really have to file a bugzilla to fix bugs around here?

User visible bugs? Yes. It's community policy, so we can have a BZ#
to refer to later and work with downstream. I need not be a magnum opus.

Cheers,
Carlos.