https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113455
--- Comment #7 from newbie-02 ---
> (and GCC doesn't implement the FENV_DEC_ROUND pragma to set a constant
> rounding mode in a particular scope)
here we are leaving my level of knowledge about internals.
Let me formulate from a user / p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113365
Bug ID: 113365
Summary: LONG DOUBLE: denormals: assigning a constant: factor
100 slow,
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113365
--- Comment #3 from newbie-02 ---
hi, thank you, super service, super fast, works!
can't tell if the -O0 behaviour is meaningful ...
but think it is rarely used. I came to it in my
attempts to avoid compiler cheating / optimizing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113365
--- Comment #4 from newbie-02 ---
hello @Andrew Pinski,
just if I'm allowed to add one more point / question:
using the testing program, playing with optimization, I get
the following results for binary64s ( doubles ):
unoptimized:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113455
Bug ID: 113455
Summary: ROUNDING: IEEE Standard: Missing decimal rounding mode
'nearest, ties away from zero' for decimalxxx
datatypes.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113455
--- Comment #2 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #1)
hello and thank you very much!!,
> The decimal rounding mode is set with fe_dec_setround.
found in my directories that I already had experimented with that,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113455
--- Comment #4 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #3)
:-) - thank you, you are my hero,
> If you're doing arithmetic with constant operands, it might be
> folded at compile time; make sure you're using -frounding
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113455
--- Comment #5 from newbie-02 ---
> If you're doing arithmetic with constant operands, it might be folded at
> compile time; make sure you're using -frounding-math to avoid that.
hm... that issue is left. From your comment I was in hope
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118246
Bug ID: 118246
Summary: FLT128_TRUE_MIN not defined?
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118246
--- Comment #5 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> quadmath.h does not contain FLT128_TRUE_MIN or MAX
I see them in float.h, also see FLT128_TRUE_MIN there as pointing define to
__FLT128_DENORM_MIN__ , guarded by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118231
Bug ID: 118231
Summary: _Decimal32 datatype fails with 'cannot mix operands',
where _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 hold,
Product: gcc
Version: 13.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118231
--- Comment #2 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> User error. D is an extension floating suffix for double constant, not
> _Decimal32.
> DF or df is the standard floating suffix for _Decimal32 constants.
T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118191
Bug ID: 118191
Summary: missing option to read __float128 from command line
argument or string
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118191
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #2 from newbie-02 -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79528
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||newbie-02 at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118191
--- Comment #5 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> This bug database is still the wrong place for your questions.
>
> You probably need a newer glibc, strtof128 is relatively new.
:-)
Thank you, i'll not try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118246
--- Comment #3 from newbie-02 ---
hello @ Andrew Pinski,
thanks for fast reaction,
a snippet that fails, compile with '-lquadmath' option,
change commenting between FLT128_MIN and FLT128_TRUE_MIN and see that all is
ok, except FLT128_T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118191
--- Comment #6 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Glibc has strtof128 for this purpose.
think typo, strtoflt128 works better!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118246
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118191
--- Comment #3 from newbie-02 ---
strto**d**128 ... name collision with 'strtod128' for decimal128 types from
libdfp?? can't even say if that or something from glibc is called on my system.
It works, but I'd like to understand, to be able to te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120175
Bug ID: 120175
Summary: Performance: compiling a program with using a library
slows other code.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120175
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96788
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||newbie-02 at gmx dot de
--- Comment #8 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96788
--- Comment #12 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Pascal Cuoq from comment #11)
hello @ Pascal, are you the one who wrote "harder than it looks ..." like that
and like your comment here too. Pls. be tolerant that newbies have to start
somewhere, m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96788
--- Comment #10 from newbie-02 ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> (In reply to newbie-02 from comment #8)
> No, in C there's NOT a negative integer constant, at all. So you cannot
> account the sign for an integer constant. ...
!!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120175
--- Comment #2 from newbie-02 ---
Left is what I wanted to investigate basically, performance of library
architectures. Odd is that shared library code runs independent from the
library file, and static as well as shared version has about factor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52930
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||newbie-02 at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120762
--- Comment #4 from newbie-02 ---
IMHO it's fully ok to build Debian with --no-as-needed if it works,
not ok is defaulting the gcc for user individual compilations that
way, it's user trapping.
Do you know if it can be steered individually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120762
--- Comment #2 from newbie-02 ---
:-) thanks for clarifying, computer math and plethora of
options which have to work together is sometimes confusing ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104695
newbie-02 changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||newbie-02 at gmx dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120658
--- Comment #4 from newbie-02 ---
@Eric Botcazou: whow, thank you!
( despite I understand the analysis details as well as Chinese. )
One additional question: can you propose how to do better, how to avoid such
fails? Were programming rule
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120658
--- Comment #6 from newbie-02 ---
@Eric Botcazou: :-) :-) :-) **applause**
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120762
Bug ID: 120762
Summary: PRINT: issue activating "Q" print format specifier
[solved]
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120658
Bug ID: 120658
Summary: OPTIMIZATION: STRING HANDLING: wrong results under
exotic conditions.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120658
--- Comment #1 from newbie-02 ---
Created attachment 61641
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61641&action=edit
A shell script which comfortably calls compilation and run with increasing
optimizations.
see Description.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120658
--- Comment #2 from newbie-02 ---
I forgot: reported because I think it's a nasty option to produce fails which
go unnoticed in testing and strike hard in production.
36 matches
Mail list logo
