On 2016-07-20 11:22, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> wrote: > > On 2016-07-20 11:04, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> > >> wrote: > >> > On 2016-07-20 10:10, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > On ARM soft-float, the float to double conversion doesn't convert a > >> >> > sNaN > >> >> > to qNaN as the IEEE Std 754 standard mandates: > >> >> > > >> >> > "Under default exception handling, any operation signaling an invalid > >> >> > operation exception and for which a floating-point result is to be > >> >> > delivered shall deliver a quiet NaN." > >> >> > > >> >> > Given the soft float ARM code ignores exceptions and always provides a > >> >> > result, a float to double conversion of a signaling NaN should return > >> >> > a > >> >> > quiet NaN. Fix this in extendsfdf2. > >> >> > > >> >> > gcc/ChangeLog: > >> >> > > >> >> > PR target/59833 > >> >> > * config/arm/ieee754-df.S (extendsfdf2): Convert sNaN to qNaN. > >> >> > > >> >> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > >> >> > > >> >> > * gcc.dg/pr59833.c: New testcase. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Ok - assuming this was tested appropriately with no regressions. > >> > > >> > Given it only touches arm code, I only tested it on arm and I have seen > >> > no regression. That said I wouldn't be surprised if the new testcase > >> > fails on some other architectures. > >> > >> I was assuming you tested it on ARM :) In this case given the change > >> is only in the backend I would have expected this patch to have been > >> tested for soft-float ARM or an appropriate multilib. Saying what > >> configuration the patch was tested on is useful for the audit trail. > >> For e.g. it's no use testing this patch on armhf ( i.e. > >> --with-float=hard --with-fpu=vfpv3/neon --with-arch=armv7-a) as by > >> default the test would never generate the call to the library function > >> but I'm sure you know all that anyway. > > > > Indeed I should have given more details. I tested it on a Debian armel > > machine, and I configured GCC the same way as the Debian package, that > > is using --with-arch=armv4t --with-float=soft. > > > > I built it once with the new test but without the fix and a second time > > with both the test and the fix. I have verified that the test fails in > > the first case and pass in the second case. > > Thanks for the info - what about all the other regression tests ? Did > you do a full make check and ensure that no other tests regressed in > comparison ? Patches need to be tested against the entire regression > testsuite and not just what was added.
Yes, I compared the testsuite result between the two runs, and there are identical beside this new test (hence my "I have seen no regression" in my first answer). Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
