On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Well, a wrong-code bug plus a very obvious fix certainly qualifies.
>
> Fine with me, onto which branch(es) do you want me to put it?
Where you have tested it already, no need to spend extra cycles.
Richard.
> --
> Eric Botcazou
> Well, a wrong-code bug plus a very obvious fix certainly qualifies.
Fine with me, onto which branch(es) do you want me to put it?
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I suppose you also install on branches?
>
> No plan to do so since this isn't a regression, unless you insist. :-)
Well, a wrong-code bug plus a very obvious fix certainly qualifies.
Richard.
> --
> Eric Botcazou
> I suppose you also install on branches?
No plan to do so since this isn't a regression, unless you insist. :-)
--
Eric Botcazou
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> This is an old bug in div_and_round_double for ROUND_DIV_EXPR: when the code
> detects that it needs to adjust the quotient, it needs to decide whether it
> increases or decreases it by 1. This only depends on the expected sign of the
> quo
This is an old bug in div_and_round_double for ROUND_DIV_EXPR: when the code
detects that it needs to adjust the quotient, it needs to decide whether it
increases or decreases it by 1. This only depends on the expected sign of the
quotient, but the test reads:
if (*hquo < 0)
So if
