http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-06-01 08:12:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #18) > Created attachment 24406 [details] > New updated patch > > This updated patch takes care of Comment #16. Unfortunately, now the other testcases fail again (although with still another results): print "(ru,g15.2)", .099d0 ! > 0.10E-01 expected 0.10 print "(rc,g15.1)", .095d0 ! > 0.1E-01 expected 0.1 print "(rc,g15.2)", .0995d0 ! > 0.10E-01 expected 0.10 print "(ru,g15.3)", .0999d0 ! > 0.100E-01 expected 0.100 print "(rc,g10.2)", 99.5 ! 0.10E+02 expected 0.10E+03 print "(rc,g10.2)", 995. ! 0.10E+03 expected 0.10E+04 print "(rc,g10.3)", 999.5 ! 0.100E+03 expected 0.100E+04 print "(rc,g10.3)", 9995. ! 0.100E+04 expected 0.100E+05 It seems there is still a bug that doesn't increment the exponent in the "overflow" case, i.e. when going from 0.9999...E(x) to 0.1000...E(x+1) The exponent test (decision between F and E editing) must be done after that! I can not find this in the code right now.
