On Aug 31 13:24, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2020-08-31 12:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 31 09:37, Brian Inglis wrote:
> >> On 2020-08-31 01:35, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> On Aug 30 14:39, Brian Inglis wrote:
> >>>> On 2020-08-30 07:00, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 29 08:52, airplanemath via Cygwin wrote:
> >>>>>> I have two reports. A brief description of the system:
> >>>>>> $ uname -a | sed "s/${HOSTNAME}/\${HOSTNAME}/g"
> >>>>>> CYGWIN_NT-10.0 ${HOSTNAME} 3.1.7(0.340/5/3) 2020-08-22 17:48 x86_64
> >>>>>> Cygwin
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>> $ cat test.c
> >>>>>> #include <math.h>
> >>>>>> #include <stdio.h>
> >>>>>> #include <stdlib.h>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
> >>>>>> long double a, b, c;
> >>>>>> char *num_end = NULL;
> >>>>>> a = b = c = 0.0L;
> >>>>>> if (argc != 2) {
> >>>>>> fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s NUMBER\n", argv[0]);
> >>>>>> exit(1);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> a = strtold(argv[1], &num_end);
> >>>>>> b = modfl(a, &c);
> >>>>>> printf("%Lf %Lf %Lf\n", a, b, c);
> >>>>>> return 0;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a bug in the assembler code taken from Mingw-w64. The bug has
> >>>>> been fixed upstream, so I just pulled in the upstream fixes.
> >>>>
> >>>> The 64 bit fix doesn't pop eax but *now* flags eax as clobbered, whereas
> >>>> the 32
> >>>> bit fix both pops and *now* flags eax as clobbered, which it really
> >>>> doesn't need
> >>>> to do. Is this inconsistent treatment correct?
> >>>
> >>> You may be right that this is not necessary on i686, but it doesn't
> >>> hurt either and I'd like to stick to the upstream code if possible.
> >>
> >> The upstream patch changed only amd64/x86_64 code sequences for multiple
> >> modules
> >> including modfl, and left i386/x86 untouched for those modules.
>
> Just pointing out that they only modify their amd64/x86_64 code which doesn't
> push/pop rax/eax:
Where are you looking at? As you could see from my output, I was
looking at the master branch of the upstream repo.
This lengthy discussion for a minor asm snippet doesn't make any sense.
If you think this is wrong, send patches to cygwin-patches and explain
where you got it from, preferrably as a git patch from the upstream
repo.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
--
Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
