Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > due to the failure of this assertion:
> >
> > ASSERT (LDBL_MIN_EXP<= DBL_MIN_EXP);
> >
> > It fails because of these numbers:
> >
> > $ :|gcc -dD -E -include stddef.h -|grep -E 'L?DBL_MIN_EXP'
> > #define __DBL_MIN_EXP__ (-1021)
> > #define __LDBL_MIN_EXP__ (-968)
>
> It looks like the right test would be
>
> ASSERT (LDBL_MIN_EXP - LDBL_MANT_DIG <= DBL_MIN_EXP - DBL_MANT_DIG);
> This would be enough to assert that a double can be assigned to a long
> double.
[without loss of accuracy]. Indeed, thanks Paolo for the nice fix. I've
applied it for you, like this:
2011-11-29 Paolo Bonzini <bonz...@gnu.org>
float tests: Correct and re-enable assertion about LDBL_MIN_EXP.
* tests/test-float.c (test_long_double): Correct and re-enable the
assertion about LDBL_MIN_EXP that was disabled on 2011-08-31.
--- tests/test-float.c.orig Wed Nov 30 01:58:31 2011
+++ tests/test-float.c Wed Nov 30 01:52:03 2011
@@ -298,14 +298,7 @@
/* Check that 'long double' is at least as wide as 'double'. */
ASSERT (LDBL_MANT_DIG >= DBL_MANT_DIG);
-
- /* Normally, we would also assert this:
- ASSERT (LDBL_MIN_EXP <= DBL_MIN_EXP);
- but at least on powerpc64 with gcc-4.4.4, it would fail:
- $ :|gcc -dD -E -include stddef.h -|grep -E 'L?DBL_MIN_EXP'
- #define __DBL_MIN_EXP__ (-1021)
- #define __LDBL_MIN_EXP__ (-968)
- */
+ ASSERT (LDBL_MIN_EXP - LDBL_MANT_DIG <= DBL_MIN_EXP - DBL_MANT_DIG);
ASSERT (LDBL_MAX_EXP >= DBL_MAX_EXP);
/* Check the value of LDBL_DIG. */
--
In memoriam Willy Cohn <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Cohn>
