This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug libfortran/48906] Wrong rounding results with -m32


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48906

--- Comment #20 from Thomas Henlich <thenlich at users dot sourceforge.net> 2011-06-01 08:12:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Created attachment 24406 [details]
> New updated patch
> 
> This updated patch takes care of Comment #16.

Unfortunately, now the other testcases fail again (although with still another
results):

print "(ru,g15.2)", .099d0 ! > 0.10E-01 expected 0.10
print "(rc,g15.1)", .095d0 ! > 0.1E-01 expected 0.1
print "(rc,g15.2)", .0995d0 ! > 0.10E-01 expected 0.10
print "(ru,g15.3)", .0999d0 ! > 0.100E-01 expected 0.100

print "(rc,g10.2)", 99.5 ! 0.10E+02 expected 0.10E+03
print "(rc,g10.2)", 995. ! 0.10E+03 expected 0.10E+04
print "(rc,g10.3)", 999.5 ! 0.100E+03 expected 0.100E+04
print "(rc,g10.3)", 9995. ! 0.100E+04 expected 0.100E+05

It seems there is still a bug that doesn't increment the exponent in the
"overflow" case, i.e. when going from 0.9999...E(x) to 0.1000...E(x+1)

The exponent test (decision between F and E editing) must be done after that! I
can not find this in the code right now.


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