On Feb 20, 2015, at 4:36 AM, Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> wrote: > On 20-02-15 10:42, Jakub Jelinek 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. >> > > Updated patch accordingly. OK for stage1?
I’ve tried to read through the bug report and all the patches, who did them and why… The entire thread is messier than I’d like, which makes dealing with this whole thing messy. The bug report I marked as fixed, as I think it now works as the bug reporter expects. Seems like a mistake it wasn’t closed a while ago. I now see why you went with this patch. Why wait for stage 1… Lets just put it in now and put an end to the misery. Ok for trunk now.
