This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: DBL_DENORM_MIN should never be 0
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
- Cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:28:35 +0000
- Subject: Re: DBL_DENORM_MIN should never be 0
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 02 dot 1409101124130 dot 29968 at stedding dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1409101640140 dot 12853 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 11 dot 1409102021290 dot 1557 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1409111649410 dot 17850 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 02 dot 1409112000380 dot 2142 at stedding dot saclay dot inria dot fr>
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know what kind of test you have in mind, so I added a runtime
> > > test. I
> > > am just guessing that it probably fails on alpha because of PR 58757, I
> > > can't
> > > test. Computing d+d may be even more likely to trigger potential issues,
> > > if
> > > that's the goal.
> >
> > Yes, a runtime test. I don't think there should be an xfail without it
> > actually having been tested to fail (and then such an xfail should come
> > with a comment referencing the bug filed in Bugzilla).
>
> Would it be ok with the attached testcase then? (same ChangeLog).
Yes, OK with that test.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com