On 3/29/20 4:30 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Would you be willing to hide a macro like CLANG_NO_DIV_BY_ZERO in a
header somewhere so it can be used in tests like test-math.h?
It'd be better to have the test fail with Clang, since Clang does have a bug
here.
There should be some way you can tell
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 7:21 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:59 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
> >
> > Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > Let's see what the GCC folks recommend: "GCC and division by 0 under
> > > sanitizers",
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2020-March/138746
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:59 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > Let's see what the GCC folks recommend: "GCC and division by 0 under
> > sanitizers", https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2020-March/138746.html.
>
> The way I interpret their answer
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermai
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Let's see what the GCC folks recommend: "GCC and division by 0 under
> sanitizers", https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2020-March/138746.html.
The way I interpret their answer
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-help/2020-March/138747.html
is:
1) You need to distinguish i
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:24 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > This showed up during acosf testing with UBsan:
> >
> > test-math.c:89:3: runtime error: division by zero
>
> The code performs a division 1.0 / 0.0. This is a valid operation in
> IEEE 854. It must produce a HUGE_V
Hi Bruno,
> Do you have time to look into this?
Sure. I'll take a look.
Regards,
Sergey
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> This showed up during acosf testing with UBsan:
>
> test-math.c:89:3: runtime error: division by zero
The code performs a division 1.0 / 0.0. This is a valid operation in
IEEE 854. It must produce a HUGE_VAL.
Surely you can tell the sanitizer to ignore this?
Bruno
Jeffrey,
> Forgive my ignorance... No'oping 0 leaks timing information
There are only few algorithms where leaking timing information is an
issue. For most of the code we deal with, the developer wants to get
optimal performance.
> I also don't think developers are going to write a rotate like:
This showed up during acosf testing with UBsan:
test-math.c:89:3: runtime error: division by zero
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 8:53 AM Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> > It looks like test-bitrotate.c is missing test cases. It is missing
> > the 32-bit rotl and rotr of 0-bits.
> >
> > The 0-bit rotate should tickle undefined behavior.
> >
> > If you want to clear the undefined behavior, then
Hi Jeffrey,
> It looks like test-bitrotate.c is missing test cases. It is missing
> the 32-bit rotl and rotr of 0-bits.
>
> The 0-bit rotate should tickle undefined behavior.
>
> If you want to clear the undefined behavior, then use this code. ...
The functions are specified in bitrotate.h, e.g
Hi Sergey,
Do you have time to look into this?
> > OS X 10.10 is reporting a failure in the argp test
> > (https://travis-ci.org/github/noloader/gnulib/jobs/668196414). It is
> > not present in OS X 10.14 testing. Search for 'error:' in the wall of
> > text:
> >
> > PASS: test-accept
> > PASS: te
Hi Jeffrey,
> I noticed arpa_inet-c++ tested OK
There's no module named 'arpa_inet-c++':
- There's no file modules/arpa_inet-c++ ,
- './gnulib-tool --list' does not mention it.
> The script is picking up arpa_inet-c++ because it does a find looking
> for a filename -tests.
It should also ch
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:00 AM Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> It looks like test-bitrotate.c is missing test cases. It is missing
> the 32-bit rotl and rotr of 0-bits.
>
> The 0-bit rotate should tickle undefined behavior.
>
> If you want to clear the undefined behavior, then use this code. It is
> re
Hi Everyone,
It looks like test-bitrotate.c is missing test cases. It is missing
the 32-bit rotl and rotr of 0-bits.
The 0-bit rotate should tickle undefined behavior.
If you want to clear the undefined behavior, then use this code. It is
recognized by Clang, GCC, ICC. It will be compiled down t
15 matches
Mail list logo
