On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 04:29:09PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:53:49PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 03:43:20PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:17:47PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > > > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr70117.c > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr70117.c > > > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > > > 128-bit floating point, because the type is not enabled on those > > > > systems. */ > > > > #define LDOUBLE __ibm128 > > > > +#define IBM128_MAX ((__ibm128) > > > > 1.79769313486231580793728971405301199e+308L) > > > > > > This is the IEEE QP float number 43fefffffffffffff7ffffffffffff80 which > > > I very much doubt is the maximum finite double-double? See the 0 in the > > > > Numbers without the 0 in the middle-end aren't valid, see > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95450#c6 > > for more details. Without the 0 in the middle the double double number > > rounded to double would require increasing the higher double, and as it is > > the largest representable finite number, that is not possible. > > Ah, in that way. Tricky. > > Mike, please add a comment, what number it represents? Okay for trunk > with that, thanks. > > (Should those not be define in some header though?)
Would it be better to represent the number in hex, like with printf's '%a' formatting (e.g. "0x1.921fb54442d18p+0"...this is NOT the same value)? (I always get nervous when I see a long float hardcoded in decimal.) PC
