On Feb 20, 2015, at 1:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25:54AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: >> this patch reverses the abort logic in pr30957-1.c, such that it aborts on >> failure rather than on success. > > That sounds really weird. From the description it looks like it is a known > bug > that we don't return -0.0. > If 0.0 is the right return value instead, I'd the test should be written as > if (__builtin_copysignf (1.0, foo (0.0 / -5.0, 10)) != 1.0) > abort (); > to make it clear you are expecting positive 0.
So, did you read the bug report? They expect the value -1.0, so, I think the above is wrong?
