On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 01:36:15PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 20-02-15 10:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:25:54AM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> >>this patch reverses the abort logic in pr30957-1.c, such that it aborts on
> >>failure rather than on success.
> >
> >That sounds really weird. From the description it looks like it is a known
> >bug
> >that we don't return -0.0.
> >If 0.0 is the right return value instead, I'd the test should be written as
> >if (__builtin_copysignf (1.0, foo (0.0 / -5.0, 10)) != 1.0)
> > abort ();
> >to make it clear you are expecting positive 0.
> >
>
> Updated patch accordingly. OK for stage1?
If it is a known bug, it should better stay as xfail, rather than pretending
the wrong behavior is correct.
Jakub
