https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #24 from jacob navia ---
Sorry, you are right. This is a terrible mistake FROM MY PART!
I am using the raspberry pi through ssh and I had several shells open, using my
Macintosh ARM 64 as the machine where I started those shells.
B
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #22 from jacob navia ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20)
> All I'm arguing is that everything I see from gcc seems to be correct.
> 30 digits precision is not enough for IEEE quad, 36 is enough.
> If I try your sqrt (2^2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #21 from jacob navia ---
When I post I come to a page
MIDAIR COLLISION DETECTED
and that provokes these repeated messages
Sorry but there is a bug in the bug reporting software...
Gosh!
:-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #19 from jacob navia ---
Sorry but the program I used was compiled with gcc. It suffers from lack of
precision too.
In ANY case, in decimal now, the square root of 2 is
1.414 213 562 373 095 048 801 688 724 209 698 078 GP PARI calcu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #18 from jacob navia ---
I can’t reply you because you do not accept accented characters, just plain
ascii, and my mailer uses a French
Accentuated character to say « You wrote » and the whole message is translated
into mime/html.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #17 from jacob navia ---
Sorry but the program I used was compiled with gcc. It suffers from lack of
precision too.
In ANY case, in decimal now, the square root of 2 is
1.414 213 562 373 095 048 801 688 724 209 698 078 GP PARI calcu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #16 from jacob navia ---
Sorry but the program I used was compiled with gcc. It suffers from lack of
precision too.
In ANY case, in decimal now, the square root of 2 is
1.414 213 562 373 095 048 801 688 724 209 698 078 GP PARI calcu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #15 from jacob navia ---
> Le 24 oct. 2022 à 22:21, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
> a écrit :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I have to agree with Joseph (on x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #11 from jacob navia ---
Please let's use 30 digits after the decimal point not 20. Long double gives 32
digits with 128 bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #10 from jacob navia ---
Please let's use 30 digits after the decimal point not 20. Long double gives 32
digits with 128 bits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #9 from jacob navia ---
Actually, this looks that a bug in all versions of gcc!
Using the "GP" calculator I obtain:
1.414213562373095048801688724209698078
Using the "bc" calculator
~ % bc
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 200
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #7 from jacob navia ---
mpfr_init2 (m, SIGNIFICAND_BITS);
How much is that SIGNIFICAND_BITS? I guess that is the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #6 from jacob navia ---
mpfr_init2 (m, SIGNIFICAND_BITS);
How much is that SIGNIFICAND_BITS? I guess that is the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #3 from jacob navia ---
1 trunk gcc:
2 .LC1:
3.word 325511829 # 0x1366EA95 <<<--- SHOULD BE 325508205
4.word -922176773 # 0xC908B2FB OK
5.word -429395012 # 0xE667F3BC OK
6.word 107
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
--- Comment #1 from jacob navia ---
This program produces correct results:
#include
#include
long double nsqrt(long double x)
{
double m = sqrt(x);
long double r = m;
r = (r+x/r)/2.0L;
r = (r+x/r)/2.0L;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107370
Bug ID: 107370
Summary: long double precision is wrong in ARM 64
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103348
--- Comment #3 from jacob navia ---
1) The complete program is as follows:
#include
int main(void)
{
long double ld = -2.3L;
ld = fabs(ld);
}
Compiler flags
gcc -S -c -std=c99 tafbs1.c
As per standard c99 fabs is a generic fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103348
Bug ID: 103348
Summary: Bad code generated for fabs(long double) under aarch64
Product: gcc
Version: 6.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Com
18 matches
Mail list logo
