sepavloff added a comment.
In D84932#2223559 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84932#2223559>, @atrosinenko wrote:
> @sepavloff
>
> Thank you for the test cases. Looks like it is worth completely rewriting the
> three tests as table-driven tests
Tests are not required to be compact. It is more important to have clear
checks, which can be easily extracted. Table-driven tests are suitable if
number of test cases is large, I think this is not the case.
================
Comment at: compiler-rt/test/builtins/Unit/divdf3_test.c:80
+ // divisor is 1.0 as UQ1.31
+ if (test__divdf3(0x1.0p+0, 0x1.00000001p+0, UINT64_C(0x3fefffffffe00000)))
return 1;
----------------
atrosinenko wrote:
> sepavloff wrote:
> > Is 0x1.00000001p+0 equal to 1.0 in UQ1.31?
> Divisor is `1.(31 zeroes)1` after restoring the implicit bit, so it is
> **truncated** to 1.0 as UQ1.31. Instead of counting bits carefully, it would
> probably be better to add several tests with the `1` bit shifted 1-2 places
> left/right as well as if the divisor is round up instead of truncating -
> //just in case//. :) So, with table-driven test it would probably be simpler
> to not make extra assumptions on the implementation.
> Divisor is 1.(31 zeroes)1
So it is **not** `1.0` and the comment is misleading. Try rewording the comment
to avoid confusion. Maybe `divisor is truncated to 1.0 in UQ1.31` or something
like that.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84932/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84932
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
