Hi Corinna, On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:49:51 +0200 Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Oct 24 17:58, Takashi Yano wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:58:02 +0200 > > Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote: > > > Hi Takashi, > > > > > > big change, so, honest question: Do you think this is safe for 3.5.5? > > > > > > This certainly also requires an entry in the release text and there > > > are just a few minor typos in comments, see below. > > > > What about adopting my first idea to 3.5.5 > > https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/2024-October/256506.html > > and applying this patch to 3.6.0 branch? > > Admittedly, I'm also not deep in FPU stuff. > > fnstenv/fldenv and dropping fninit look like a simple approach to fix > the worst problem. Did you just discuss this on the mailing list or did > you check that it actually fixes the reported problem?
I tested locally using Christian's test case and confirmed that the problem has been fixed as well as that no new problem occurs. > But either way, I wonder if it's worth the effort to have two different > solutions. This isn't a regression, so we don't have to fix this ASAP > in 3.5.5. It could easily wait a version. > > So I'm thinking we should go with your sleek new code in 3.6 and let > this simmer for a while, so it's put to use by people running 3.6 > versions. > > Does that sound right? Hmm, this is not a regression but a long-standing bug which can easily be fixed. Also, there is only a very small risk of regression with the fnstenv/fldenv patch. Moreover, the bug causes critical miscalculations to result in long double processing. So, I think it is better to apply the v3_5-branch patch (I have just submitted) for cygwin-3_5-branch, and to apply the v3 patch (I already submitted) to the master branch. v3_5-branch patch is simple and small, so it will not be so painful to maintain. Don't you think so? -- Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp>
