[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