This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH libquadmath/PR68686]
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, burnus at net-b dot de, jakub at redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 20:09:49 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH libquadmath/PR68686]
- References: <bca16da8-46e7-a274-3724-6472aa6803bd@verizon.net>
On 10/23/18 7:45 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> This is an almost trivial patch to get the correct sign for tgammaq.
>
> I don't have a testcase as I don't know where to put one.
>
> OK?
>
> Ed Smith-Rowland
>
>
>
> tgammaq.CL
>
> 2018-10-24 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd@verizon.net>
>
> PR libquadmath/68686
> * math/tgammaq.c: Correct sign for negative argument.
I don't have the relevant background to evaluate this for correctness.
Can you refer back to any kind of documentation which indicates what the
sign of the return value ought to be?
Alternately, if you can point to the relevant code in glibc that handles
the resultant sign, that'd be useful too.
Note that Joseph's follow-up doesn't touch on the gamma problem AFAICT,
but instead touches on the larger issues around trying to keep the
quadmath implementations between glibc and gcc more in sync.
Jeff