This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Don't optimize by hand (Was Re: Lack of fabsf on Solaris(patch included))

To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: Don't optimize by hand (Was Re: Lack of fabsf on Solaris(patch included))
From: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:20:39 +1300
CC: java-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <3A70BB41.9D3123E@albatross.co.nz> <87ae8epxs6.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <14961.33042.703779.784301@viagra.cambridge.redhat.com> <20010126233654M.shudoh@muraoka.info.waseda.ac.jp> <14961.44673.109722.857289@viagra.cambridge.redhat.com>

Andrew Haley wrote:

> Not necessarily: non-strict FP can be exactly the same as strict FP at
> the implementor's discretion.  In this case the question is, are the
> values GCJ returns incorrect?

My understanding is that the values GCJ returns are incorrect according to
the spec's definition of strictfp. However, they are not incorrect
relative to most other x86 implementations of Java.

regards

  [ bryce ]

References:
- Re: Don't optimize by hand (Was Re: Lack of fabsf on Solaris (patch included))
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: Don't optimize by hand (Was Re: Lack of fabsf on Solaris (patch included))
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Don't optimize by hand (Was Re: Lack of fabsf on Solaris (patch included))
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Don't optimize by hand (Was Re: Lack of fabsf on Solaris(patch included))
  - From: Kazuyuki Shudo
- Re: Don't optimize by hand (Was Re: Lack of fabsf on Solaris(patch included))
  - From: Andrew Haley

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]