[PATCH/2nd version] Re: nextafter() about an order of magnitude slower than trivial implementation
Joseph Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
Fri Aug 20 16:55:59 GMT 2021
On Fri, 20 Aug 2021, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> if(ax > 0x7ffull << 53) /* x is nan */
> return x;
> if(ay > 0x7ffull << 53) /* y is nan */
> return y;
How has this been tested? I'd have expected it to fail the nextafter
tests in the glibc testsuite (libm-test-nextafter.inc), because they
verify that sNaN arguments produce a qNaN result with the "invalid"
exception raised, and this looks like it would just return an sNaN
argument unchanged.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list