> I'm concerned that this would produce +0.0 for an argument of -0.5 (via > -0.5 - 0.5 - -1.0 producing +0.0) when it needs to produce -0.0.
Would the following overhaul be acceptable as the condition is specialized for -0.5 and +0.5 only. This seems to solve the problem. I did test the roundeven tests and it passes the tests. void real_roundeven (REAL_VALUE_TYPE *r, format_helper fmt, const REAL_VALUE_TYPE *x) { if (is_halfway_below (x)) { if (REAL_EXP (x) == 0) { *r = *x; clear_significand_below (r, SIGNIFICAND_BITS); } else { do_add (r, x, &dconsthalf, x->sign); if (!is_even (r)) do_add (r, r, &dconstm1, x->sign); } if (fmt) real_convert (r, fmt, r); } else real_round (r, fmt, x); } tests: /* { dg-do link } */ extern int link_error (int); #define TEST(FN, VALUE, RESULT) \ if (__builtin_##FN (VALUE) != RESULT) link_error (__LINE__); int main (void) { TEST(roundeven, 0, 0); TEST(roundeven, 0.5, 0); TEST(roundeven, -0.5, 0); TEST(roundeven, 6, 6); TEST(roundeven, -8, -8); TEST(roundeven, 2.5, 2); TEST(roundeven, 3.5, 4); TEST(roundeven, -1.5, -2); TEST(roundeven, 3.499, 3); TEST(roundeven, 3.501, 4); if (__builtin_copysign (1, __builtin_roundeven (-0.5)) != -1) link_error (__LINE__); return 0; } Thanks, Tejas On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 20:03, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019, Martin Jambor wrote: > > > +/* Round X to nearest integer, rounding halfway cases towards even. */ > > + > > +void > > +real_roundeven (REAL_VALUE_TYPE *r, format_helper fmt, > > + const REAL_VALUE_TYPE *x) > > +{ > > + if (is_halfway_below (x)) > > + { > > + do_add (r, x, &dconsthalf, x->sign); > > + if (!is_even (r)) > > + do_add (r, r, &dconstm1, x->sign); > > I'm concerned that this would produce +0.0 for an argument of -0.5 (via > -0.5 - 0.5 - -1.0 producing +0.0) when it needs to produce -0.0. > > Note that testcases for the sign of zero results need to check e.g. > !!__builtin_signbit on the result, or the result of calling > __builtin_copysign* to extract the sign of the result, since 0.0 == -0.0 > so checking with ==, while necessary, is not sufficient in that case. > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > jos...@codesourcery.com