This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 1 GCC HEAD regressions, 1 new, with your patch on 2005-01-07T15:37:24Z.
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- To: gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: roger at eyesopen dot com, aj at suse dot de, konqueror at gmx dot de, dave dot anglin at nrc-cnrc dot gc dot ca, edelsohn at gnu dot org, rsandifo at redhat dot com, rth at redhat dot com, bkoz at redhat dot com, geoffk at apple dot com, tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de, mark at codesourcery dot com, bdavis9659 at comcast dot net, dberlin at dberlin dot org, jakub at redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:48:34 -0500
- Subject: Re: 1 GCC HEAD regressions, 1 new, with your patch on 2005-01-07T15:37:24Z.
- References: <20050108120441.87FE713F04BF1@gcc-regress.apple.com>
On Jan 8, 2005, at 7:04 AM, GCC regression checker wrote:
With your recent patch, GCC HEAD has some regression test failures,
which used to pass. There are 1 new failures, and 0
failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
have been fixed.
The new failures are:
native libstdc++.sum 18_support/numeric_limits.cc
I almost think this was caused by:
+2005-01-06 Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@apple.com>
+
+ * c-cppbuiltin.c (builtin_define_float_constants): Set __*_EPSILON__
+ for IBM long double format correctly.
The error message from that failure:
/Users/regress/tbox/cvs-gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/
numeric_limits.cc:81: failed assertion `one != (one + epsilon)'
And the code from that testcase:
template<typename T>
void test_epsilon()
{
bool test __attribute__((unused)) = true;
T epsilon = std::numeric_limits<T>::epsilon();
T one = 1;
VERIFY( one != (one + epsilon) );
}
So to me, this looks like the epsilon is not correct after this
change or is this just invoking undefined behavior (which I really
doubt it because of the definition of epsilon is what this test is
testing, well it is testing to make sure that it is at least bigger
than the real epsilon).
-- Pinski