On Mon, 9 Sep 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> Hello.
> I am using real_isfinite to check for overflow conditions. How should
> I check for underflow? I have tried different ways but they
> contradicted other cases to pass.
I think the right check for underflow is: *before* calling
exact_real_truncate
Hello.
I am using real_isfinite to check for overflow conditions. How should
I check for underflow? I have tried different ways but they
contradicted other cases to pass.
static bool
fold_const_narrow_binary (real_value *result, const real_value *arg0,
int icode, const real_value *ar
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> Hello.
> Should a result like 1.4 be considered as inexact if truncating
> (narrowing?) from double to float? (due to loss of trailing bits)
If the mathematical result of the arithmetic operation is literally the
decimal number 1.4, as opposed to the doub
Hello.
Should a result like 1.4 be considered as inexact if truncating
(narrowing?) from double to float? (due to loss of trailing bits)
Comments of real_arithmetic says that it returns TRUE if the result is
inexact. There's another function, exact_real_truncate which returns
TRUE if truncation is
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> Hello.
> I have made changes in the patch according to the above corrections.
> However, I didn't understand how these following testcases are
> supposed to handle. Will you please elaborate some more?
>
> > (E.g. fadd (0x1.01p0, FLT_MIN), as an examp
Hello.
I have made changes in the patch according to the above corrections.
However, I didn't understand how these following testcases are
supposed to handle. Will you please elaborate some more?
> (E.g. fadd (0x1.01p0, FLT_MIN), as an example from the glibc
> tests: cases where an intermediat
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Tejas Joshi wrote:
> +/* Try to evaluate:
> +
> + *RESULT = fadd (*ARG0, *ARG1)
> +
> + in format FORMAT. Return true on success. */
> +
> +static bool
> +fold_const_fadd (real_value *result, const real_value *arg0,
> + const real_value *arg1, const real_f
