This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Avoid division by zero.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Ilya Tocar <tocarip.intel@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > This patch removes possible division by zero.
>> > Make check passes. Ok for trunk?
>> >
>> > 2014-01-30  Ilya Tocar  <ilya.tocar@intel.com>
>> >
>> >         * gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h: Use correct rounding values.
>> >
>> > ---
>> >  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h | 3 ++-
>> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h
>> > index 3209039..8441784 100644
>> > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h
>> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/m512-check.h
>> > @@ -58,7 +58,8 @@ check_rough_##UINON_TYPE (UINON_TYPE u, const VALUE_TYPE *v,  \
>> >                                                                 \
>> >    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE (u.a); i++)                       \
>> >      {                                                          \
>> > -      VALUE_TYPE rel_err = (u.a[i] - v[i]) / v[i];             \
>> > +      VALUE_TYPE rel_err;                                      \
>> > +      rel_err = v[i] != 0 ? (u.a[i] - v[i]) / v[i] : u.a[i];   \
>> >        if (((rel_err < 0) ? -rel_err : rel_err) > eps)          \
>> >         {                                                       \
>> >           err++;                                                \
>>
>> We won't get zero from exponential function, so expecting zero result
>> is flawed anyway.
>>
>> If we would like to introduce universal epsilon comparisons into the
>> testsuite, then please read [1]. Being overly pedantic, the definition
>> should be "|(v[i] - u.a[i]) / v[i]|", as stated in [2].
>>
>> [1] http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/comparing-floating-point-numbers-2012-edition/
>> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_error
>>
>
> We get zero from testing zero-masking. Currently we produce 0/0 = NaN.
> Comparison with NaN is always false, so tests pass. But I think that
> this should be fixed to avoid division by zero. As for being more
> pedantic about comparison, I doubt that its useful, when we use
> 0.0001 as eps.

In this case, please add simple check for zero, with the above
comment. We don't test exp function, but masking.

Uros.


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