https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104865
--- Comment #7 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
Well, it's not clear to me whether the reserved operand as defined by the
VAX floating-point architecture ought be considered an sNaN given that
there is no qNaN.
Also a reserved operand causes a fault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104865
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
OK, maybe I should not have used __builtin_nan in the test. The bug is in the
rest of the code though, isn't it? Replace the __builtin_nan with a function
returning the same sNaN, does the test still fail?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104865
--- Comment #5 from Maciej W. Rozycki ---
Wrong question then. Should `__builtin_nan' even compile on non-IEEE-754
FP targets that don't have a qNaN? And I'll reply to myself.
According to our manual:
"-- Built-in Function: double __builtin_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104865
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
They can still have NaNs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104865
Maciej W. Rozycki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||macro at orcam dot me.uk
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104865
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Wrong code for conditional |Wrong code for conditional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104865
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
