On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:43:30PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:31:29PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > + /* For logb(-Inf) we have to return +Inf. */
> > > + if (value->cl == rvc_inf && !tree_expr_nonnegative_p (arg))
> >
> > Why not
> > if (value->cl ==
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:31:29PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > + /* For logb(-Inf) we have to return +Inf. */
> > + if (value->cl == rvc_inf && !tree_expr_nonnegative_p (arg))
>
> Why not
> if (value->cl == rvc_inf && value->sign)
> or
> if (real_isinf (value) && real_
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:24:48PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:16:31PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Okay, patch updated. Ok now (which branches, all active?)?
> > Regtested/bootstrapped again on x86_64-linux.
>
> Eh, I've found a bug in previous version (not proper
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 05:16:31PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Okay, patch updated. Ok now (which branches, all active?)?
> Regtested/bootstrapped again on x86_64-linux.
Eh, I've found a bug in previous version (not properly adjusted
testcase). So this one should be ok.
2013-04-25 Marek Pola
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 03:44:08PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > This is an attempt to fix PR57066, where when folding logb call,
> > we returned -Inf for logb(-Inf), which is not correct.
> >
> > I had to adjust one testcase, because it c
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This is an attempt to fix PR57066, where when folding logb call,
> we returned -Inf for logb(-Inf), which is not correct.
>
> I had to adjust one testcase, because it checked for a wrong value.
>
> What I don't know yet is what we should retu
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 03:37:35PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> If a function with one or more NaN arguments returns a NaN result,
> the result should be the same as one of the NaN arguments (after
> possible type conversion), except perhaps for the sign."
>
>
> "F.9.3.11 The logb functions
> — lo
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
This is an attempt to fix PR57066, where when folding logb call,
we returned -Inf for logb(-Inf), which is not correct.
I had to adjust one testcase, because it checked for a wrong value.
What I don't know yet is what we should return for -Nan, it shou
This is an attempt to fix PR57066, where when folding logb call,
we returned -Inf for logb(-Inf), which is not correct.
I had to adjust one testcase, because it checked for a wrong value.
What I don't know yet is what we should return for -Nan, it should be
in C9X standard, but I don't have it by
