[PATCH] Fix lrint, lrintf bugs
Mon Jun 27 09:25:00 GMT 2005
>From: Dave Korn
>Sent: 26 June 2005 17:09
> ----Original Message----
>> From: Dave Korn
>> Sent: 26 June 2005 16:56
>> ----Original Message----
>>> From: Dave Korn
>>> Sent: 26 June 2005 16:25
>>> Um. If I'm brutally honest I suppose I should point out that the
>>> testing doesn't cover very large values. I'll do that offline after I
>>> send this post. In the meantime, assume this is good unless I report
>>> back it went wrong!
>> :) It went right!
> For reference, here's the improved testcase I used with big nums, and it
> also uses long ints instead of recycling the float/double vars to receive
> the function results. Still no discrepancies.
Oh, and as CV has pointed out, one of these might be needed:
2005-06-26 Dave Korn <email@example.com>
* libm/common/s_lrint.c (lrint): Fix signed-vs-unsigned comparison
and miscalculation caused by fp representation of zero.
* libm/common/sf_lrint.c (lrintf): Likewise.
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
More information about the Newlib