On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 15:22:37 PDT (-0700), jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 15:12:39 PDT (-0700), jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> > +proc check_effective_target_fenv_setround {} {
> > +
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 15:12:39 PDT (-0700), jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >
> > > +proc check_effective_target_fenv_setround {} {
> > > + return [check_runtime fenv_setround {
> > > +#include
> > >
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 15:12:39 PDT (-0700), jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
+proc check_effective_target_fenv_setround {} {
+ return [check_runtime fenv_setround {
+#include
+#include
+int
+main (void)
+{
+ if (fesetround (1) =
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> +proc check_effective_target_fenv_setround {} {
> + return [check_runtime fenv_setround {
> +#include
> +#include
> +int
> +main (void)
> +{
> + if (fesetround (1) == 0)
There is no reason to expect that 1 is a valid argumen
Some tests check for fenv and then proceed to use fesetround() directly,
but some platforms (at least RISC-V soft-float) have fenv but don't
support rounding modes. This adds a DG check that fesetround() actually
functions, which is then used by all the tests that call fesetround()
explicitly.
gc
